Jump to content

User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

Dispute at Ghaznavids

Thanks for the heads up, Ed. After reading what Nasir Ghobar has said, "....but Kansas Bear who I suspect is an Iranian...", "Everyone in Afghanistan are complaining that Iranians are on a crusade to steal Afghanistan's history.". I have absolutely no desire to respond to such racist comments. If Wikipedia has become a haven for such individuals to spew their racist rhetoric, then perhaps I should re-assess my recent return. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

NG is surprisingly knowledgable for a brand-new editor. Perhaps you can get User:Edward321 to join the talk page discussion. If you believe that User:Nasir Ghobar is editing non-neutrally due to nationalist motivations, and if this dispute falls under WP:ARBAA2, you might consider a report to AE. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed Nasir's unusual knowledge of Wikipedia's templates and policies, given his so few edits. Your thoughts on that?
It would probably be better if you invited Edward321 to the conversation on Ghaznavids, I wouldn't want to appear to be canvassing.
Also, I have no idea if this falls under WP:ARBAA2, which is ironic since I've tried to stay away from that area!! --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not canvassing if (a) you notify everyone who has edited the article recently, (b) you keep the wording of your message neutral. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
What I posted shouldn't be viewed as a racist comment, it's actually international news. [1] The Ghaznavids were all born inside Afghanistan, they set up a mighty new kingdom inside Afghanistan, they employed 1,000s of Afghans in their army, and they all died inside Afghanistan and are buried there, yet the article doesn't allow "History of Afghanistan" template. To me it appears that the article is written by Persians and Iranians, with a very narrow view point, making the Ghaznavids Persians when they in fact were Turks who fought Persians.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Ed, could you lock down the Ghaznavid article until such time as a consensus is reached? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Please try to communicate with the IP and with Nasir Ghobar before protection is considered. Very few people work on these articles so there is no rush. A proper talk page discussion is appropriate. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Who is this User:Edward321? I improved this article but he reverted to a bad version which contains added IP nonsense in Nancy Dupree's quote. My edits were appropriate.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Please discuss these matters at Talk:Ghaznavids. The degree to which the Ghaznavids were a Persian dynasty must have been assessed by mainstream historians. Wikipedia should try to reflect whatever these sources say. Similar problems occur when considering the nationality of the Safavid dynasty, a topic which has been discussed at WP:Arbitration enforcement and has been the subject of sanctions that are logged in WP:ARBAA2.
This statement which you made at Talk:Ghaznavids may suggest that some of your edits have nationalist motivations: "..that's clearly insulting Afghanistan's history because every modern state takes strong pride in their past history." Wikipedia does not write articles to make the citizens of modern states feel good or bad about their history; we write to reflect what reliable sources believe to be true. EdJohnston (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
My above comment was in regards to "History of Afghanistan" where User:Edward321 unjustly reverted my edits. [2]. I asked this because I felt it was your bot who did that. About the Ghaznavid dynasty, the rulers were all born inside Afghanistan, their capital was inside Afghanistan, they all died inside Afghanistan, they are all buried inside Afghanistan and have national mausoleums built over them. Every person loves his country, and every person usually just have one country, the problem in the "Ghaznavids" page is why keep removing the "History of Afghanistan" template? The remover (User:Hame fan harif) didn't do that by mistake, he or she is obviously an anti-Afghanistan and I was referring to him or her when I wrote that.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 08:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The "discussion" at Talk:Ghaznavids has now resulted in Nasir labeling every source that states the Ghaznavids were a Persianate as "original research" and is clearly demonstrating an unwillingness to accept published sources. Given Nasir's hostility towards anything or anyone Persian/Persianate and the nationalistic flavor to his edits, what would you suggest? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Can you make the case in 300 words here on my talk page? Nasir complained that your sources should have page numbers; is it easy for you to find them? Maybe you can get User:Alborz Fallah to give his opinion. His name appears in the talk thread. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I've made it very clear that I'm not against the term "Persianate" being used in the article, none of the books or any other source support "The Ghaznavids were a Muslim Persianate dynasty". The way this is presented in the Ghaznavids page constitutes WP:OR, particularly WP:SYN. I proposed adding this controversial information in the appropriate place, after the 2nd paragraph in the introduction, like this: "The Ghaznavids inherited Samanid administrative, political, and cultural traditions and laid the foundations for a Persianate state in northern India.[1][2][3]". Now what is so wrong with this? Why is Kansas Bear persisting that "Persianate" must be right in the lead? Clifford Edmund Bosworth is the leading expert on the Ghaznavids and he explains that "The Ghaznavid sultans were ethnically Turkish, but the sources, all in Arabic or Persian, do not allow us to estimate the persistence of Turkish practices and ways of thought amongst them." We must respect the opinion of an expert like Bosworth. Besides, nobody else claims that the Ghaznavids (ruling family) were Persians or Persianate. It is just Kansas Bear claiming this and using quotes from books that don't even support his view.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
After Nasir attempted to side step Persianate into being a contruct of "Persian employees" using a "source" that did not say that[], I told him that was Wikipedia:OR, now everything that I have posted, according to him is "original research".
"....none of the books or any other source support "The Ghaznavids were a Muslim Persianate dynasty"."
"The present author concurs with their analysis, but believes that Daniel overlooked how integral a part of the legitimizing project the Persianate dynastic militant proto-Sunni stance was; this is why we find it so conspicuously displayed by all three of the major Persianate dynasties - Saffarids, Samanids and Ghaznavid." -- The Islamization of Central Asia in the Sāmānid era and the reshaping of the Muslim world, D.G. Tor, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 72:2 (2009), 281.[3]
" One of the effects of the renaissance of the Persian spirit evoked by this work was that the Ghaznavids were also Persianized and thereby became a Persian dynasty.", B. Spuler, "The Disintegration of the Caliphate in the East", in the Cambridge History of Islam, Vol. IA: The Central islamic Lands from Pre-Islamic Times to the First World War, ed. by P.M. Holt, Ann K.S. Lambton, and Bernard Lewis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970). pg 147
"The poet Ferdowsi composed the Iranian epic, the Shahname, around 1000, under the administration of the Ghaznavid dynasty in Central Asia, which was Turkic in origin and Persianate in culture."[4]
"The Ghaznavids inherited Samanid administrative, political, and cultural traditions and laid the foundations for a Persianate state in northern India."--Medieval Islamic Civilization, by Homyra Ziad, Ed. Josef W. Meri, p294.
"Forced to flee from the Samanid domain, he captured Ghaznah and in 961 established the famed Persianate Sunnite Ghaznavid empire of Afghanistan and the Punjab in India."(Sydney Nettleton Fisher, William Ochsenwald, The Middle East: a history: Volume 1.[5]
This is how Nasir plays his game,
First, Nasir states how Afghans never became a part of Persian society, "because many areas, particularly the larger ethnic Afghan tribal area in Afghanistan and Pakistan never became a Persianate society."
This had nothing to do with the Ghaznavid dynasty or empire being a Persianate.
Second, Nasir starts making up his own rule, "NOT a single published source mentions "The Ghaznavids were a Persianate Muslim dynasty" in its introduction."
Which is not required by Wikipedia.
Thirdly, Nasir accuses me of, "This is deliberately distorting information or falsification of sources I think." Undoubtedly to try to garner an emotive response. Much like his racist comment.[6]
Fourth, Nasir tried to use this paragraph, "The fact that the personnel of the bureaucracy which directed the day-to-day running of the state, and which raised the revenue to support the sultans’ life-style and to finance the professional army, were Persians who carried on the administrative traditions of the Samanids, only strengthened this conception of secular power. The offices of vizier, treasurer, chief secretary, head of the war department, etc., were the preserves of Persians, and no Turks are recorded as ever having held them. It was not for nothing that the great Saljuq vizier Ḵᵛāja Neẓām-al-Molk held up Maḥmūd and the early Ghaznavids as exemplars of firm rule.", saying "Do I need to explain this summarization in my own words? It is what the mainstream historians say about the Ghaznavid dynasty. It was the Persian employees of the Ghaznvids who laid the foundation for a Persianate state in northern India."[7]
original research anyone? The paragraph he supplied says nothing of the sort.
Fifth, after I expanded the Culture section, Nasir not satisfied with trying to suppress the information I added, slaps a "verification" tag on the section, here are the references in question, with his "edit summary", "Information in this section need a way to be verifiable and dead links need to be removed or fixed."
  • 29. Jocelyn Sharlet, Patronage and Poetry in the Islamic World: Social Mobility and Status in the Medieval Middle East and Central Asia, (Tauris Academic Studies, 2011), 46.
  • 30.Ghaznavids, E.K.Rowson, Encyclopedia of Arabic Literature, Vol.1, Ed. Julie Scott Meisami and Paul Starkey, (Routledge, 1998), 251.
  • 31.Jocelyn Sharlet, Patronage and Poetry in the Islamic World: Social Mobility and Status in the Medieval Middle East and Central Asia, 27.
  • 32.Jocelyn Sharlet, Patronage and Poetry in the Islamic World: Social Mobility and Status in the Medieval Middle East and Central Asia, 52.
  • 33. Brian Spooner and William L. Hanaway, Literacy in the Persianate World: Writing and the Social Order, (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012), 284.
  • 39.Ghaznavids, Homyra Ziad, Medieval Islamic Civilization, Ed. Josef W.Meri, (Routledge, 2006), 294.
  • 40.Muzaffar Alam, Françoise Delvoye Nalini and Marc Gaborieau, The making of Indo-Persian Culture: Indian and French Studies, (Manohar Publishers & Distributors, 2000), 24.
  • 41.Brian Spooner and William L. Hanaway, Literacy in the Persianate World: Writing and the Social Order, 284.
Do you see page numbers listed above? If you check any edits that Nasir has done, I have not interfered nor labeled them in any way.
Finally, this nonsense, "I'm accusing YOU of doing Original Research, not the book writers. You are confused, none of these books explicitly mention the Ghaznavid dynasty (Turks) being Persianate."[8].
Sources and quotes listed at the beginning.
Lastly, I am done dealing with this editor. His racist remarks, nationalistic and battleground attitude are not conducive to the building of an online encyclopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I was having an intelligent discussion with Kansas Bear at Talk:Ghaznavids but he/she came here wrongly accusing me. I created an account to improve the Ghaznavid related pages and my tagging was appropriate because I want readers to verify the information because anyone can edit something and write a name of a book as a reference. I actually tagged the section so that I can add book links when I'm not busy. Kansas Bear keeps ignoring "the leading experts" on the Ghaznavid dynasty such as Clifford Edmund Bosworth but rather google the word "Persianate" and post the results to us, of course by cherry-picking. He/she only posts sources that errenously mention the Turkish Ghaznavid dynasty a Persian one, for example:

  • The abstract by Deborah Tor is about the Persian Samanids but we're dealing here with the Turkish Ghaznavids. She writes: "Thus was born a succession of Persianate dynasties in the eastern part of the Empire, which derived their political and theological legitimation from the espousal of devout and militant proto-Sunnism."[7] 7:"Scholars such as Julie Meisami and Elton Daniel have correctly noted the Sāmānid need to legitimize their rule, while paradoxically not attributing their stringent adherence to an “ideologically ‘correct’ version of Islamic history and doctrine” to this need, but rather to what they describe as a wholly unrelated aim: “to counter the teachings of various hetero-dox and sectarian groups”, Julie Meisami, Persian Historiography to the End of the Twelfth Century (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999), 24. The present author concurs with their analysis, but believes that Daniel overlooked how integral a part of the legitimizing project the Persianate dynastic militant proto-Sunni stance was; this is why we find it so conspicuously displayed by all three of the major Persianate dynasties – Saffārids, Sāmānids and Ghaznavids."
Deborah Tor is not an expert on the Ghaznavids, she mentions these 3 in a very general way without going into details. Historians sometimes do that because they confuse "dynasty" with state (empire). Besides, this is counted as an opinion. We can email her and have her explain her position on this, but most likely she'll say consult experts on the Ghaznavids.
  • "One of the effects of the renaissance of the Persian spirit evoked by this work was that the Ghaznavids were also Persianized and thereby became a Persian dynasty." He doesn't explain what does he mean by "becoming a Persian dynasty." It could just mean a "Persian speaking dynasty." Besides, that's the opinion of one book writer, B. Spuler.
  • The 2011 book "Iran at War: 1500-1988" by Kaveh Farrokh talking about poet Ferdowsi is another opinion. Clifford Edmund Bosworth in his article about the Ghaznavids has explained this: "The Ghaznavid sultans were ethnically Turkish, but the sources, all in Arabic or Persian, do not allow us to estimate the persistence of Turkish practices and ways of thought amongst them. Yet given the fact that the essential basis of the Ghaznavids’ military support always remained their Turkish soldiery', there must always have been a need to stay attuned to their troops’ needs and aspirations; also, there are indications of the persistence of some Turkish literary culture under the early Ghaznavids..."[9]

We have already went through the other books in Talk:Ghaznavids, which are referring to the state and not the rulers (dynasty). To add "Persianate" in the lead sentence of the Ghaznavids in Wikipedia, we would need strong evidence backed by leading experts, Not a random mention of a book writer. I'm going to say this one more time that I'm Not against the term "Persianate" in the article. Since it is unconfirmed, disputed and a controversial issue, it makes perfect sense to have it mentioned in the 2nd paragraph which talks about this. I'm sure that there is a policy which explains how to add controversial information in the correct way into articles.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The sentence, from the source supplied by Nasir, states:
"The Ghaznavids thus present the phenomenon of a dynasty of Turkish slave origin which became culturally Persianised to a perceptibly higher degree than other contemporary dynasties of Turkish origin such as Saljuqs and Qarakhanids.".[10]
Thus clearly supporting that the Ghaznavids were culturally Persianised(ie. a Persianate). It would appear that Nasir intentionally left this second paragraph out in an attempt to continue his anti-Persian POV editing.
It is a shame that such duplicity and Afghan ethnocentricity will not be dealt with in a proper manner on Wikipedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I have only come across some edits of Nasir. But if I read Kansas' description of the "Iranian" accusation, the strong Afghan nationalist sentiment, the dislike for Persians and reliable sources, and the edits are truely damaging, you might want to CU for User:TAzimi respectively User:Lagoo sab. Also WP:Duck might say it all. JCAla (talk) 07:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for issuance of discretionary sanctions

Unique Ubiquitous was notified. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello Ed. There is a "new" account that has behaved in a manner that I believe warrants the issuance of ARBPIA warnings. Assuming that I can justify the request (and that would be entirely within your discretion of course) may I post the reasons for issuance on your page? Given some sensitive prior matters, I can understand if your are reluctant to entertain my request. If that is the case, can you provide me with advice on how to proceed with this particular account?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can show a 1RR violation or some edits that would alarm any administrator then feel free to continue here. If it needs a judgment call, some other admin might be a better choice. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Ed. I'm a bit busy at the moment but will post the diffs as soon as I have some time. I also want to take the opportunity to apologize to you for things that I may have said (or thought) in the past. I hope we can put that behind us.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay here goes. This account [11] is acting in a problematic way
  1. In this edit he reverts a reasoned edit performed by A1234 and refers to it as “vandalism”. Incidentally, this isn’t the first time that he’s referred to an edit and reverted claiming “vandalism”
  2. He then proceeds to HOUND A1234 by following him from article to article systematically reverting him here here here here here here here. There are more examples but I think you got the point.
  3. An interesting diff is this where, realizing he violated 1r, he self reverts with the following edit summary reinstating purposefully deceptive writing to appease a Ya, not good.
  4. In this edit [12] he reverts Frederico1234 with the following edit summary misleading edit summary, simple POV pushing Essentially, he’s claiming that Frederico’s edit summary was deliberately misleading to promote a certain POV. This claim is not only false, it constitutes a personal attack. Also, the Six day war article is subject to a unique restriction that requires editors to post explanations for their reverts at Talk. No such explanation was forthcoming from this account. If you think that a warning is not warranted, I will accept your judgment and let the matter rest.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I left a note for Unique Ubiquitous. Let's give him a chance to respond here and see if he wants to explain his edits. I reformatted your complaint so that the numbering works. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey Ed, I'm aware of ARBPIA, you don't need to warn me, if I do something wrong under ARBPIA you can just go ahead and block/topic ban. I actually meant to email an admin about my history last week but when I went to add my email I realized I forget my account password. Well, I'm pretty much an old editor who hates POV pushers and sockpuppets (example), and as such is hated by them so I have been forced to abandon old accounts due to harrasment. I'm 100% positive Activism1234 is a giant DUCK, only reason I didn't do an SPI on him a week ago was that he edits using a mobile device to hide his IP and there is no one particular editor he is similar to. Still, his contributes all clearly show he is a very experienced editor, very likely banned or topic banned, who is here for the sole purpose of pushing a pro-Israeli stance into articles. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
LOL WHAT? I don't edit on a mobile device, it's too much of a hassle if you look at the size of my edits... I use a PC when I'm at home, and switch between a PC/Mac when I get a break in work (depending what room I'm in). I must say, there were people before who assumed I rememberd the name of my previous account, and that was a reasonable assumption, but this one just doesn't make any sense... Conspiracy theory? I don't know whether editors can see my IP, perhaps a firewall program blocks it, but I really don't care since I know I'm not using a mobile device at all to make edits... Although I do appreciate he says my contributes show I'm a very experienced editor. If you go to my user page, you see I mention how serious I am about Wikipedia editing, so I am glad he says I am experienced, as this is what I strive for. Even though he mentions there is no editor I am similar to (because I'm myself, and no other editor...), he still believes his ridiculous conspiracy theory... He then states I'm onlyhere to push a pro-Israel stance into articles, which would seemingly place my other edits (for example, on chemistry articles) at odds with that statement, and also with the statement I'm an experienced editor. An experienced editor would likely contribute in a fair and balanced way. It was a nice attempt though to avoid the complaint JJG has filed...
I would like to add Ed, I warned Unique about 1RR here. I don't have any intention of reporting users over stuff like this if they're willing to self-revert, as his 1RR may not have been intentional. But as JJG stated above, when he did self-revert, he wrote as the excuse that he was doing it to appease a person. He seemingly doesn't care about Wikipedia policies... Secondly, he only self-reverted on ONE of the two pages that he violated 1RR. I warned him AGAIN to self-revert on the second page. He has not done so, although he has been editing here since I warned him. He seemingly does not care for Wikipedia policies or violating 1RR, and did not care to self-revert. He has not self-reverted on the Mahmoud Abbas article. Maybe he thought I'd just see his self-revert and assume he fulfilled all his obligations, including on the second article... I planned on filing a complaint, but JJG beat me to it (I'm a busy man). Basically, we have a situation in which he hounds me and reverts my edits rather than go on the talk page, violates 1RR and was warned twice and did not self-revert for all articles he violated, and whatever else was stated above. I recommend serious action, as this vandalism is very problematic. Thanks. --Activism1234 22:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The following all point toward A1234 being a duck;
  • 36 edits in his first 3 days, all on Israeli topics, CCR has a strong history of POV pushing
    • In these edits he uses much markup, including, blockquotes, breaks, points, referencing, uses "minor edit", joins a project, and states that he is "just getting started on Wikipedia"
  • His disappearence after the 3 days of heavy editing, followed by a reemergance a few months later back into heavy editting, this is common for making sleeper accounts/quick and heavy POV pushing than quiting and creating a new account to avoid attention such as this
  • His first edit back was a !vote - [13] where he shows his knowledge of policy
  • His fancy signature, fancy user page, false pretext of being interested in editing in the field of chemistry - makes up what 1% of his edits,
  • Knowledge of 1RR, WP:ARE, knows much policy, uses key words like "reliable", "consensus"
  • The quickness of A1234's response here, high edit activity and LARGE edits - he isn't fixing spelling...
  • All this and he can't remember his old account's name or a single page he used to edit...

Prime suspects - known sockpuppeters/block evaders/currently topic banned/very strong ideology editors include Gilabrand, 99.237.236.218, Mbz1, Jaakobou, Someone35, Shuki, or one of the long term sockpuppeters. Let's just get this finished so I can leave the toxic area that is I/P. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, you're trying to avoid your very own violations of Wikipedia with stuff that doesn't even make sense. None of that points to anything.
  • "36 edits in his first 3 days, all on Israeli topics, CCR has a strong history of POV pushing" - wow! A wikipedia user edited Wikipedia, and made 36 edits in... 3 days! That's a total of... 12 edits per day! Usually if someone wants to get into Wikipedia editing and is psyched about it, they're gonna go overboard in beginning.
    • "In these edits he uses much markup, including, blockquotes, breaks, points, referencing, uses "minor edit", joins a project, and states that he is "just getting started on Wikipedia"" - wow! A Wikipedia user uses markup, and knows how to read the words "minor edit" (as well as the fact he had a previous account so knows that already...). Wow! A Wikipedia user navigated across different links and found a project to join (not on 1st day either I believe)!
  • "His disappearence after the 3 days of heavy editing, followed by a reemergance a few months later back into heavy editting, this is common for making sleeper accounts/quick and heavy POV pushing than quiting and creating a new account to avoid attention such as this" - There was no disappearance. I maintained a continous presence and continued editing, although certainly not as heavily as now. The reason is pretty simple, and I expect that something similar will occur starting in September when I go back to a full time job and family life. I had a hectic time those few months, lots of reports to do, work, files, construction, tragedy, and family to take care of. I'm pretty free now, and my job in the summer allows me to edit at certain intervals during the day since I can complete my task rather quickly and have some time leftover.
  • "His first edit back was a !vote - [14] where he shows his knowledge of policy" - again, I had a previous account, and one of the multiple reasons for creating a new account was because I had somehow surfed across Wikipedia links and found this and wanted to participate.
  • "His fancy signature" - created only a week ago based on user Ankh's signature (slightly different), plus the user is familiar with HTML and has designed websites. "fancy user page" - fancy? I thought it was pretty boring. It's just a bunch of text and a border created about a week ago... "false pretext of being interested in editing in the field of chemistry - makes up what 1% of his edits" - of course I'm interested in the field of chemistry. Just because I haven't edited it that much doesn't mean I'm not interested and won't edit in the future...
  • "Knowledge of 1RR, WP:ARE, knows much policy, uses key words like "reliable", "consensus"" - we should be happy that new users read the Wikipedia policies and guidelines as instructed by Wikipedia... Even still I didn't know about 1RR until Nableezy told me about it... I use key words like that because people like you bring it up so often in talk pages... I'm a quick learner buddy, it's something I'm thankful for.
"* The quickness of A1234's response here" - as explained above. "high edit activity" - as explained above. "and LARGE edits - he isn't fixing spelling..." - good, more information on Wikipedia!
"*All this and he can't remember his old account's name or a single page he used to edit..." - explained far far far above.
"Prime suspects - known sockpuppeters/block evaders/currently topic banned/very strong ideology editors include Gilabrand, 99.237.236.218, MichaelNetzer, Jaakobou, Someone35, Shuki, or one of the long term sockpuppeters. Let's just get this finished so I can leave the toxic area that is I/P." - don't know any of them and have no connection to them. YOU specifically stated above that my type of edits are unlike any known editor, so don't give me this b.s.
Ed, may I request even more serious action to be taken about this? These accusations are completely unfounded and a huge waste of my time. He stated above my edits are unlike any other editor he knows - since I'm only myself and not a sock. Yet he continues with this to avoid the complaint JJG filed at him. If he can prove that I am a sock, go ahead. He can't. Because I'm not. Simple as that. Any further discussion on this is pointless. People who really want to beleive something will believe it regardless. --Activism1234 23:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you all, that's enough information. Activism1234 and Unique Ubiquitous, please take this discussion elsewhere if you feel it must continue. If anyone wants to file a sock report, take it to WP:SPI. I'm going to notify Unique Ubiquitous of the discretionary sanctions since he indicates above that he is already aware. EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I would still like to note that he has never made a self-revert for violating 1RR on Mahmoud Abbas article, despite being told twice. I would hope he does so immediately. --Activism1234 23:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Unique has seen your statement on his page asking him to self-revert and has responded to it, and has had a sufficient amount of time since your last statement on his page. He has still refused to self-revert. He also removed my comment, in which I again brought it up so he would hopefully self-revert, which was "It doesn't matter what you personally think, you still reverted twice within 24 hours and violated the 1RR rule, and you were notified about this twice. You were also specifically told that if you still felt there was an issue with the wording, you were welcome to bring it up on the talk page, rather than simply revert and revert." It appears as though he has no intention of complying with Wikipedia policies or a notification from an administrator... --Activism1234 01:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
He claims that your edit at Mahmoud Abbas adds negative material sourced only to MEMRI, which is not appropriate in a BLP article. I suggested on his talk page that he raise the matter at WP:RS/N. If he is correct that this removal is justified under BLP, then it may be an exception to 1RR. One would not expect MEMRI to be the #1 fan of Abbas.
If you or Unique Ubiquitous have further concerns, either of you, please raise the matter with some other admin or take it to a noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
OK thanks for the clarification. I still feel that in the future, with anyone, an explanation should be given on the talk page rather than risk violating 1RR, and the other user should be willing to be flexible if an appropriate explanation is given. This way, a better discussion can be formed with the opinions of others rather than just a summary box based on personal opinions. But I'm just going to leave this alone, thanks for the help Ed, it's really appreciated.--Activism1234 02:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

ACC

Just wanted to stop by and say it was nice to see your name on the end of day report, hope you stop by more often, thanx for your help. Mlpearc Phone (Powwow) 01:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello EdJohnston

Please could you also semiprotect indefinitely the article Cartoon Network Latin America if not too much trouble, I would appreciate a lot.--OliverDF (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I've semiprotected Cartoon Network (Latin America) for two months due to the vandalism. If you have some time and if you speak Spanish, please take a look at es:Cartoon Network Latinoamérica. There is a lot of good material in the Spanish version, and their sources could be added to our article. Our present article in English is linked only to CNLA's own website and to LAMAC, which are both badly organized if you want to confirm any factual information. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

I'm seeking to make an infobox on someone's death (specifically this). I've tried searching and found some info on infoboxes, but wasn't really what I needed... Any idea where I can find a comprehensive guide on this, or a template for someone's death? Thanks so much. --Activism1234 05:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really the person to ask, but you can type 'Death of' into the Wikipedia search box and see some articles. In one case I noticed {{Infobox historical event}} being used. There are suggestions for what to do at Help:Infobox. Consider WP:Help desk if you need more advice. You will find some people strongly opposed to infoboxes, though I'm not sure why. EdJohnston (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much! --Activism1234 13:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Request experimental lifting of edit restriction on Esoglou

I would like to propose an experimental lifting of the edit restriction on Esoglou wrt Eastern Orthodox doctrine.

Aside from a general desire to tap Esoglou's extensive knowledge of Catholic and Orthodox doctrine, the specific motivation for my request is that I wish to ask Esoglou for help in reviewing and improving the orphaned article Eastern Orthodox opposition to the doctrine of Papal Primacy. I will, of course, consult Orthodox editors such as User:Cody7777777 and User:Montalban. However, I wish to consult Esoglou and I can benefit more fully from his knowledge if he is not under edit-restriction.

You may remember that Esoglou and LoveMonkey submitted to voluntary edit restrictions where Esoglou agreed not to edit text regarding Orthodox doctrine and LoveMonkey agreed not to edit text regarding Roman Catholic doctrine. That agreement was more or less effective in reducing the conflict between the two users. However, as of Dec. 31, 2011, LoveMonkey has retired from Wikipedia. He may come back. He has left and come back before. However, he's been gone over 6 months.

Now, LoveMonkey is not the only editor that Esoglou has been in conflict with but the other conflicts have been much less contentious. With LoveMonkey gone, I think there is a chance that Esoglou can contribute usefully to Wikipedia articles on Orthodox doctrine.

So, I propose that we lift the edit restriction on a probationary basis with myself acting as Esoglou's mentor, working to mediate any disputes that may arise. If serious conflict occurs, then we will have to consider reimposing the edit restriction.

I have notified Taiwan boi of this proposal; however, he has been inactive since March 8, 2012 so a response may not be forthcoming. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for you response on my Talk Page. FWIW, I prefer to keep all relevant discussions on one page so, if you don't mind, please reply here if you feel the need. Your talk page is on my watchlist.
The reason I didn't make my proposal on ANI is that it was a voluntary edit restriction brokered by (mostly) you and Taiwan boi. (There was one other editor marginally involved but I forget who that was.) I figured we didn't need to drag anyone new into closing out what is hopefully an unnecessary restriction. I will proceed assuming that the restriction is no longer needed. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
If you think nobody else needs to be consulted, I would list it at WP:AN to confirm that it should be lifted. The restriction is still visible in WP:RESTRICT and the community has an interest in what gets logged (or rescinded) there. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, ok, thanx. I didn't know about WP:RESTRICT. I thought the edit restriction was informal. I'll post to WP:ANI. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
This request is now at WP:ANI#Request experimental lifting of edit restriction on Esoglou. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
And subsequently withdrawn due to opposition from Taiwan boi. Given the current kerfuffle that LoveMonkey is making over East-West Schism, the edit restriction seems to be very much needed after all. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A sockpuppet of Corticopia and in turn of E Pluribus Anthony?

Hi there, a relatively new user, Ubiquinoid (talk · contribs), who is edit-warring on various geography-related pages, seems to be a sock of Corticopia (talk · contribs). Many language similarities (including peculiar use of "entail" and of "reckoning," and occasional use of the expression "pot, kettle") have made me suspicious. I was referred to you by an admin here. I have also posted on Elockid's talk page. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like User:Elockid has already taken care of this. He saved me some work writing up an SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Editing at East–West Schism

Please open a new thread below if you think this discussion should continue. Before doing so, check Talk:East–West Schism to see if that would be a better place for your comment. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please keep another fight from starting with this violation ("From the perspective of the Catholic Church, the ecclesiological issues are ...") of the restriction (which I'm sure you remember) against making edits concerning Roman Catholic teaching and practice. Esoglou (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This edit by LoveMonkey appears to be stating what Catholics believe. That is not the domain he is allowed to edit per the ban. See WP:RESTRICT for the details: "LoveMonkey will not make article edits regarding Roman Catholic teaching or practice." I will ask him to comment here. EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

OMG the amount of frustration caused by the double standard hypocrisy at wikipedia is waaayyyy beyond the pale. Do you Ed even step back and think about what your conduct does to people, to the project. I bet you don't really care now do you Ed..Almost 25,0000 edits 30 or 40 articles I either authored and or did heavy contribution too. For what? To be harassed like this. For the record..

1.The section is not specific to either side nor the content per se its not exclusive to Roman Catholic teaching it covers BOTH. That was a good enough excuse for Ed in the past to slap Esoglou on wrist and say don't do it again. And leave it at that. WASN'T IT. Reverts don't allow edits that specific. The source says what I restored someone else wrote it, as I did not write it PERIOD.
2.I reverted, I did not write or rewrite anything.
3.Esoglou again gets a free pass from Ed Johnston his protector and benefactor because by the standard of accusation against me, Esoglou is just as or even more guilty of a vio AGAIN for his radical original research rewrite (YES the source Esoglou left in the article says what I reverted too, what was there first attributed to it)..And yet I get a notice and if I have committed a vio against the restriction it would be like my first where as for Esoglou it would be his 4TH OR 5TH. So why is it OK for Esoglou to WP:OR from the Eastern Orthodox perspective all the way to abortion all over wikipedia. To make wikipedia over into his perspective and opinion to call on Ed here to again run me off. And thats sane..And here I am being called to task. INCREDIBLE. Go ahead revert it back and ban me. Cause either way Im gone. I just wanted to show Steven Walling just how impossible this whole thing called wikipedia has become and how out of control and impossible it is to contribute to this mess this nightmare called wikipedia. I'd call it a joke but there is nothing funny about what you or Richard or Esoglou are doing. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
LM, if you think Esoglou broke his restriction, please supply diffs. I have explained above why you should not have changed a statement about what Catholics believe. The fact that you were restoring a sentence that you did not write yourself makes no difference. If you think Esoglou is mis-stating what Catholics believe, you should explain patiently on the talk page and use reliable sources to back up your views. (The one web site you linked to to show what Catholics believe, romancatholicism.net, seems quite inadequate for Wikipedia use). I've commented further at Talk:East–West Schism. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
If LoveMonkey believes that EdJohnston is biased or in some sort of cabal with Esoglou and myself, he is always free to invite another uninvolved admin to review the situation. I doubt that this would yield any different results but LM should not feel that he is at the mercy of a biased admin. If LM does not avail himself of this option, then perhaps he should tone down the histrionics and invective aimed at EdJohnston. It's very poor form. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Ed, here is what Esoglou added to the East West schism article..It is in direction vio of his restrictions.
"However, from the perspective of Orthodox theologians, there are theological issues that run much deeper than just the theology around the primacy and/or supremacy of the Pope. In fact, unlike the Catholics who do not generally consider the Orthodox heretical, and speak instead about the Eastern "schism". [15]
Please note this obvious POV and distortion of the Orthodox perspective has been RESTORED by Pseudo-Richard to the article. [16]
The original wording did not say; that the Roman Catholic Church don't see the Orthodox as heretic but the Orthodox have got the problem and are the only ones calling people heretics. No it is much more neutral and stated.
"Catholics refer to the Eastern Orthodox adherents as schismatics in as far as their rejection of the papacy and recognition of only the first 13 Councils, and as heretics in as far as their rejection of defined Catholic dogma (ie, the Immaculate Conception, Filioque."
Also the original passage doesn't white wash the Roman Catholics and distort the truth of the matter (see the Roman Catholic theologians I name on the article talkpage whom do indeed call the Eastern Orthodox heretics and my comments about the source itself the Catholic encyclopedia the contradicts it stance on this issue between the various articles and authors it reflects). And the passage conforms to the actual source given to it in the article. Where as what Esoglou rewrote about Orthodox theolgians is not in the source in the article as it stand right now. Again no one has called him to task for distorting the passage. For using a source that does not say what Esoglou put in the article. No one has called out Esoglou for posting what Orthodox theologians say. No one. No I got a notice that I might get blocked. This edit warring POV pushing editor Esoglou and his tag team partnet Pseudo-Richard are disruptive and run off contributors. Just like me, just like Taiwan Boi, just like Cody, just like Montalban. And you Ed doing their bidding and not calling them to task facilitate the whole nightmare of it. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I have copied the above discussion to Talk:East-West Schism because I believe the case is not black-and-white but rather somewhat nuanced with both sides being partly in the right and partly in the wrong. IMHO, a simple enforcement of the edit restriction will not resolve the conflict. This issue deserves to be discussed in a location where all interested editors can read it and weigh in. Accordingly, I have moved it here. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Afrocentrism article

You might want to take a look and see if the article needs locked down. Two editors are going at it quite intensely(edit-warring). --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I've warned Inayity and Malik Zulu Shabazz Jr ‎about 3RR. Let's hope it has some effect. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Well thanks for the warning, You can see I have tried to use the Talk page and that has not worked. I then request help from another user to as his opinion(pending), content is being added that has no reference and violated NPOV. I will not edit war once it is monitored by non-warring parties. --Inayity (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Nationalistic editor

Hi Ed, Are you willing to look at the contributions of an apparently Armenian editor whose (relatively few) contributions largely seem to be aimed at promoting Armenian contributions to food and reducing mention of Turkish contributions? Both I and User:Macrakis have made attempts to speak to this editor on their talk page and, looking at their contributions, there seem to be a few mini-revert wars going on with assorted other editors. I was wondering whether a word of advice from an admin may be a preferable step to taking a newish editor straight to ANI.

If you (or any of your admin stalkers) are interested, I'm happy to identify which editor I am talking about though it should be reasonably easy to work it out.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Ps I see that whilst I was working on the above User:E4024 has now also commented on the user concerned's talk page.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I see, another life-and-death struggle over appetizers. If there is a revert war over whether a certain food was invented by the Armenians, then I assume that WP:ARBAA2 applies. I've added User talk:Thinkfood to my watchlist. Thinkfood's comment here about 'biased Turkophiles' suggests he may be editing from a strong nationalist POV. EdJohnston (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed. I haven't noticed anything specifically Azeri mentioned but haven't looked at all of the user's edits nor at the ruling.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the harassment. I wonder what wikipedia policy is when someone targets a specific individual by claiming he is of a specific nationality and also a nationalist when they can't come up with rational, critical reasoning regarding articles, and instead hide behind "credible sources" (even if those "credible sources" are wrong) to seemingly push their own form of nationalism and ideology. I'm sure that somewhere out there wikipedia must also have a policy against, in addition to nationalism, bigotry and accusatory harassment, and bullying others by abusing ones privileges granted as a result of their edit history. Meanwhile since you are really concerned about "nationalism" and you are one of the most valuable Wikpedians out there, I suggest you visit all the Turkish articles and help in cleaning them up of nationalism, since, for some reason, it seems those are the least of your concern. Thinkfood (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

If you believe you are being harassed, please link to an example. I just gave you the official warning under WP:ARBAA2. I thought you might appreciate an individualized message rather than a template. If you would prefer a {{uw-sanctions}} notice, I could do that. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, Ed, for the record, I found this page on my own having read his comments about me editing Armenian food and Macrakis and meant to post on his talk page, not yours, so I apologize for this mistake. (I was just checking to see through his page if he had responded to link request). We could relocate it with your permission if appropriate. Thinkfood (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello Thinkfood, if you want to withdraw any comment you made here, you can strike through it with <s> and </s>. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Done, thanks (sorry about the misunderstanding). Thinkfood (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ed, glad to see you are also concerned with nationalism in food articles. One of the links I found when looking at Dolma and Baklava actually discussed this problem. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 Burgas bus bombing

Hello,

I'm sorry to bother you, but would you be willing to semi-protect the page 2012 Burgas bus bombing? The page has been subject to frequent vandalism and edit warring. Examples of this include:

  • An editor writing in the article "This is why I hate Muslims."
  • Editors/I.P. addresses removing the President of Iran Ahmadinejad's statements from Iran's reactions, since it celebrated the attack and implied Iran was responsible. I tried editing it down and down and hopefully they would accept it, but to no avail, it just keeps being deleted. This ranges from an edit from me based on the referenced sources (including a semi-state-run Iranian source) (other editors had it in as well before), to editing it so it's only quotes that he said and nothing else, to just writing that statements he made were viewed by some media outlets as implying responsibility. Still, it's been removed (and I'd like it to be reinserted, although without violating 1RR, and using admin privileges to keep it like that, although that can be discussed afterwards).
  • Removing an entire section on background info that has been referenced to multiple media outlets and foreign embassies' statements, on the claims that it comes from a single prime minister's speech and is just a coincidence (part of the section was that it occured on the same day as the 1994 AMIA bombing, which targeted Jews and Argentina accused Iran of being responsible), despite it appearing in multiple media outlets before the speech was given and also in the statements of foreign officials (again, I'd appreciate it to be reinserted but it can be discussed afterwards).
  • Inserting 2 opinion pieces by very biased people as facts and using it to discredit a passage from the New York Times that conforms to Wikipedia policies and doesn't write anything as a fact, but rather based on the reference. Also violates WP:UNDUE, perhaps more appropriate in a general article about the New York Times (although even there, I'd say it's unnecessary and unimportant, it's not a widespread opinion).
  • Removing part of Hezbollah's reactions to the attack to make it say only that they denied responsibility but not Secretary General Nasrallah's comments about pursuing Israelis "day and night." Instead, the statement said "Hezbollah denied responsibility for the attack. In a speech given the following night, Nasrallah did not mention the attack." As you can see, the last sentence would be irrelevant and is just vandalism.
  • Tons of 3RR violations during the page's opening days; not it's 1RR.
  • Edit warring, such as in the above statements.

Feel free to ask any questions.

Thank you so much. --Activism1234 02:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

From looking at Talk:2012 Burgas bus bombing I see that the admin User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is active on the article. He has pointed out some BLP issues. Why not ask FP whether he thinks the article needs any kind of protection. Articles on current events are often unstable and we may need to let them evolve for a few days. There is a small amount of IP nonsense but IPs are also making useful edits. The article seems to enjoy heavy editing from a broad set of people. The attack on Muslims has already been revision-deleted. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:109.165.140.217 reported by User:AnkhMorpork (Result: Blocked 24 hours ), though I don't fully understand the admin reasoning there. Somebody thinks the article is under 1RR but I'm not certain if that's the case. Another admin recently declined semiprotection at RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I worked with the admin Future Perfect at Sunrise in regards to the Ahminadjead quote, he was the one who came up with the extremely edited down version that I mentioned, but as I said, someone just deleted it again. I will ask him about protection though. --Activism1234 03:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. So sorry to bother you again. Can you please quickly explain how to upgrade the status of an article, for example from C class, or redirect me to a page explaining such? I've searched on Wikipedia, and it appears it's just based on tags that users add in the talk page, but I'm confused whether users can keep on adding more and more tags, one per user, or whether each user updates an existing tag. I'm referring to any article, but commented here since the Burgas article is rated C class but I believe can be upgraded further. Thanks. --Activism1234 06:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:GAN/M you probably should ask one of those people.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Activism1234, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Assessment to get some ideas. The bottom of that page is a list of recent reassessments. You could post at WT:TERRORISM for assistance or ask someone who does article ratings for that project. If you think the article is good enough to deserve B-class, see the criteria at Template:Grading scheme. To see examples of articles at each quality level, look at Category:Terrorism articles by quality. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, really. --Activism1234 17:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Dave Light

Do I really have to report him at 3RR? He reverted me after a warning, and he is clearly without a doubt edit warring. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, good idea to do this for the record, so I have. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Now moot, since someone closed your 3RR report. I agree that an immediate block would be fine. I tend to use extra warnings in extremely one-sided cases where the outcome is obvious. 'You see that steamroller bearing down on you? This is your last chance..' EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ed

I stumbled across an IP edit and on the article's talk page, it appears to be using multiple anonymous confirmed proxies according to 'Geolocate', what is the policy on wikipedia for such matters, because my initial impression is that it seems to be a grey area. Sheodred (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears that another admin already answered this. If you are not satisfied you could make a report at Wikipedia:OP#Reporting and see what they say. As a further step a normal proxy check could be run, even though there is already a proxy tag. EdJohnston (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Historylover4

Hello. User:Historylover4 has been misrepresenting a source at Israelites (and edit-warring over it). You can read details at Talk:Israelites#DNA evidence and User talk:Historylover4#Misrepresentation of sources.

Short of going to AE, is there any means of dealing with an editor engaging in this sort of behavior? According to User:No More Mr Nice Guy, it has been going on at other articles as well, including Demographic history of Jerusalem and The bride is beautiful but she is married to another man.

I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I am wondering about a topic ban given his pov editing. Dougweller (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I've added a userlinks template above for ease of reference, and will leave a notice for the editor. The discussion here on my talk may be due to my June 27 block of Historylover4 per a discussion at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, because of that block I thought you might be familiar with Historylover4's edit history. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I simply quoted the PNAS source in full, it is clear Zionist propagandists who are liars claiming I'm supposedly "misrepresenting" something by simply QUOTING the WHOLE TEXT! "The fixation index, FST, calculated concurrently to the PCA, confirms that there is a closer relationship between the AJ and several European populations (Tuscans, Italians, and French) than between the AJ and Middle Eastern populations (Fig. S2B). This finding can be visualized with a phylogenetic tree built using the FST data (Fig. S2C), showing that the AJ population branches with the Europeans and not Middle Easterners. Two recent studies performing PCA and population clustering with high-density SNP genotyping from many Jewish Diaspora populations, both showed that of the Jewish populations, the Ashkenazi consistently cluster closest to Europeans (13, 25). Genetic distances calculated by both groups also show that the Ashkenazi are more closely related to some host Europeans than to the ancestral Levant (13, 25). Although the proximity of the AJ and Italian populations could be explained by their admixture prior to the Ashkenazi settlement in Central Europe (13), it should be noted that different demographic models may potentially yield similar principal component projections (33); thus, it is also consistent that the projection of the AJ populations is primarily the outcome of admixture with Central and Eastern European hosts that coincidentally shift them closer to Italians along principle component axes relative to Middle Easterners. Taken as a whole, our results, along with those from previous studies, support the model of a Middle Eastern origin of the AJ population followed by subsequent admixture with host Europeans or populations more similar to Europeans. Our data further imply that modern Ashkenazi Jews are perhaps even more similar with Europeans than Middle Easterners."

As for the other charges, I removed clear Zionist propaganda from completely obscure Zionist rags like "shofar"!, that are in complete contradiction to published academia.Historylover4 (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the above pretty much shows all you need to see about this editor.
By the way, he just made his 4th edit in 24 hours (putting back the rejected information) on Israelite. The second edit might not be a revert but it's still obvious edit warring.
Also, Shofar is published by Purdue University Press. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Yep. That's clearly a personal attack on me, as I'm the one who said he was misrepresenting the paper by not using " Taken as a whole, our results, along with those from previous studies, support the model of a Middle Eastern origin of the AJ population followed by subsequent admixture with host Europeans or populations more similar to Europeans. Our data further imply that modern Ashkenazi Jews are perhaps even more similar with Europeans than Middle Easterners." The quote above is by the way too long and all but the bit I just quoted has been removed as not within fair use. And it is really unnecessary, as IMHO the quote starting "Taken as a whole" is their summing up.
He's attacked other editors on other article talk pages, blocked 4 times for editing warring (the last time only 4 days ago), and his talk page makes fascinating reading. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Since 27 July Historylover4 is not continuing to revert at Israelites or at Demographic history of Jerusalem. Regarding Israelites, I am not sure that the admins at WP:AE would have the patience to examine the DNA arguments carefully. The population graph made by User:Zero0000 at Talk:Demographic history of Jerusalem#historylover's recent edits would be easier for admins to understand. I think Historylover4's revert of that article is very hard to justify as respecting the consensus. The complaint above is essentially that Historylover4 is a 'high volume bad editor' of I/P articles. If that's really the case, we should be able to tell if we wait a week or two whether his continuing behavior really justifies a ban from I/P articles. You can (of course) go to AE without waiting any longer but if you do so a more tightly written complaint is needed, in my opinion. For reference, the three AN3 complaints that led to blocks of Historylover4 are here. It's possible that if someone carefully reviewed the last 30 days, including all the I/P articles he worked on, they might be able to collect enough data to justify a topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure you are right about AE, for the moment at least. I know I have enough on my plate right now, but I'll keep an eye on things. Thanks for the diffs. Dougweller (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Ed. I'll also try to keep an eye on Historylover4's edits. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you take a look?

It appears two editors are in dispute at the Greater Iran article. Care to take a look? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Another admin has semiprotected Greater Iran. I assume this takes care of the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I/P tag

Hello,

Can you take a look at the article One minute of silence and whether it merits the I/P Arbitration 1RR tag? The article does deal with Israelis, Palestinians, and concerns a terrorist attack perpetrated by Palestinians against Israelis.

Also, would it be possible to change the name to "One Minute of Silence," as most articles I've seen are capitalized in this way?

Thanks. --Activism1234 00:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, this article 2012 Burgas bus bombing has the I/P 1RR tag twice, and a protection tag twice. I think it should only have one of each. Thanks. --Activism1234 13:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The 2012 Burgas bus bombing article is tagged both for move protection and semiprotection. This is not a problem. Regarding the notices on the talk page, what you call the duplication is actually the wording of the current {{ARBPIA}} template. I am trying to find out why the language is duplicated, and will let you know. As to the capitalization in One minute of silence, try to find how the campaign is spelled by the organizers of the campaign. The topic of the article easily justifies it being under the ARBPIA 1RR, in my opinion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmm interesting, didn't know that about the tags. OK thanks. Based on their Change.org petition, it appears to be capitalized (but someone could argue they're just capitalizing all the major words, like in any title). I actually just made it capitalized because another editor said he was confused when he saw the link in another article, thinking it was to an article about minutes of silence in general, and thus it'd be better to capitalize to show it's the campaign. If a bunch of editors feel that it should be called something like "One minute of silence 2012 campaign," I'd be willing to do that. For now, I think I'll leave it and then see how others feel. I don't have any strong feelings on this, as long as the title isn't too wordy or anything. Thanks for your help again. --Activism1234 21:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding Template:Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement. At my suggestion Ebe123 has undone what seemed to be a duplication. The main use of this template is to label articles subject to the 1RR restriction. My concern was the implication that the first 1RR violation would not be enforced if the editor was new to the article. What I found to be troublesome was "Those editors who violate the ruling, but are unaware of it, will be informed of the details before any sanctions are invoked." That wording has now been removed. EdJohnston (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, I really appreciate it. Awesome. --Activism1234 03:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI

HammerFilmFan was previously notified of the 3RR report at 23:59, 30 July 2012, but he deleted it from his talk page at 00:01, 31 July 2012. In fact, he has deleted every message I've ever sent him, even ones telling him I agree with him. Viriditas (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RogerThatOne72

Mentioned you and your SPI on this. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Can you take a look at the article please? Gatoclass and I are involved in this, and it's been going on for two years including the previous sock and you're probably the only one aware of the history. Also, the ANI thread archived with no action. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 02:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Here are some of the links:
Well, it has been to NPOV/N and ECCN already (although no one participated in either threads) [17], [18] as RogerThatOne72 had posted there. A peripheral discussion at FT/N [19] and a different COI/N report related to Yogi Bhajan [20]. Unfortunately, except for the initial ANI report on the Fatehji account which had three uninvolved editors supporting a topic ban, none of the others have any response, so I'm not sure taking this topic to a noticeboard is of much help any longer. I can probably ask a couple of other admins who work in the Fringe/RS area to take a look (Dougweller comes to mind), do you think that would be a workable option? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Postings at ANI sometimes don't get any response positive or negative. I think trying to persuade one other admin would be useful. If you have the time to do so, making a better summary of the whole case would be useful. Since there really aren't reliable sources showing high importance for Yogi Bhajan in the history of Kundalini yoga, the changes made by RogerThatOne72 are usually based on weak or improper sources. Evidence about Roger's use of sources and his article edits might be collected and arranged by someone who had the patience. This would be a better foundation for future requests for sanctions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Is it really too late to file a sock report? An IP was duplicating Roger's edits only two weeks ago, and Affinity909 was doing the same in March. Seems to me if these got a match that should be grounds enough for action. Gatoclass (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
This is good information. Why not reopen the SPI linked above and add your new data. Ping me if you do so. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I will do that. It will have to wait until tomorrow though since I'm about to log off. Gatoclass (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Gatoclass, let me know if you need any assistance on this (you're probably closer to reality on the KY segment of the Yogi Bhajan set). Also, I'm not entirely sure that the 131 IP is linked, as the previous one that was confirmed was quite far away (it's on the SPI). However, the 192 and 74 IPs appear to be close by. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Block didn't take?

Hi Ed, I'm confused by the edits here which seemed to go on in article space anyway despite there being a clear block in the log. Am I missing something? Btw, this is relevant to this case.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The block expired on 29 July at 2011-07-29T18:21:22. It looks to me that a new long-term block for disruption is justified, whether or not this IP is confirmed to be a sock. He has reverted the same passage from the lead of Race and intelligence about seven times since mid-July. This reverting continued after his latest block expired. I agree with you that it is strange he was able to edit on 28 July. Wrong year, see below. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
How long term? :) That is what I was debating over. I'm inclined to one week for disruption: continuing the same behavior as before that got them blocked in the first place.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Why not ask Beeblebrox to comment on the Giornorosso SPI. He issued the previous block for 'block evasion'. If the guy is actually a sock, a really-long-term block would be justified. You could also ask User:Nuclear Warfare since he blocked Thonos as a sock of Giornorosso. It ought to be easy to catch R&I socks since their interests are so predictable. By the way, congrats on your request for adminship! EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Took me a minute to dig through this and recall the case. It pretty obviously is the same user, edits to the race and intelligence article and its talk page go back two years, they seem to revisit the subject each July for some reason. Previous block was based on them continuing an edit war started by Thonos. I think it is pretty likely they are one in the same but even if they aren't the long term edit warring is enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
B., thanks for sorting this out. Meanwhile, the mystery of the 28 July 2012 edit is solved because the previous block was in 2011 not 2012. EdJohnston (talk) 06:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Works for me and glad the mystery was solved. Thank you both.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Eric Mit 1992

In relation to User_talk:Eric_mit_1992#You are edit warring on a grand scale, note that prior to the edit warring block I had started a thread at AN about the editor and his wikilawyering on the talk page: Wikipedia:AN#Eric_mit_1992_Blacklight_Power. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I left a uw-sanctions warning for Eric mit 1992 under WP:ARBPS. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ed Kosiski

Hi Ed, You placed a block on this page [21] page. Could you please revert to this page [22]? Following what I believe to be the process - I did not revert the deletion prior to reporting. So, now the page is protected with the other editor's (the one that resumed the edit war) edits. Thanks 174.70.63.4 (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
You can still post at Talk:Ed Kosiski. Why not try to get consensus for that version? You could also leave messages for other registered editors who have worked on the article and draw attention to your request. EdJohnston (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. 174.70.63.4 (talk) 04:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Page Triage newsletter

Hey all. Some quick but important updates on what we've been up to and what's coming up next :).

The curation toolbar, our Wikimedia-supported twinkle replacement. We're going to be deploying it, along with a pile of bugfixes, to wikipedia on 9 August. After a few days to check it doesn't make anything explode or die, we'll be sticking up a big notice and sending out an additional newsletter inviting people to test it out and give us feedback :). This will be followed by two office hours sessions - one on Tuesday the 14th of August at 19:00 UTC for all us Europeans, and one on Wednesday the 15th at 23:00 UTC for the East Coasters out there :). As always, these will be held in #wikimedia-office; drop me a note if you want to know how to easily get on IRC, or if you aren't able to attend but would like the logs.

I hope to see a lot of you there; it's going to be a big day for everyone involved, I think :). I'll have more notes after the deployment! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at DeltaQuad's talk page.
Message added 01:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Also replied in more detail at ANEW. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Troubles AE

Hi there. I was impressed (from my position as March the guilty bastard in, Sergeant-Major defendant) with your comments on the 1RR complaint brought against me by User:One_Night_In_Hackney. He has now raised yet another Troubles-related 1RR, albeit on an article about islamist terrorism in London, and I think that with your existing knowledge of the situation you would be a valuable contributor to this case. Thanks. --FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 04:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sebelius

Thanks. Tired of dealing with that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Ongoing BLP nonsense is an especially good reason for semi. EdJohnston (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Block of John Foxe

This is a friendly notification that I have made a suggestion regarding the terms for unblock that you proposed at WP:AN3 for John Foxe. In case you didn't see it, I'd appreciate your thoughts on my suggestion there. Thanks, alanyst 17:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

JF is now unblocked, and the reasons are in the AN3 thread. EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
May I suggest, as the admin making the changes, you update Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Final_warnings with the new restrictions.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 12:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Continous edit warring on Battle of Aleppo

I haven't made any edits to this article, but I have been monitoring it and reading it, and noticed that there has been some edit warring going on continously, as well as what I perceive to be violations of 3RR, rather than using the talk page to discuss a revert and not just revert a revert.

For example, see these diffs, which I believe may violate 3RR. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

I haven't interacted with this editor before and don't have any vendetta against him, I'm just pointing out some examples. Most of these diffs, if not all, deal with removed content which was then subsequently added by the editor back in, etc. Diffs 2 and 3 are very similar as well, for example removing the name of a commander to "unknown" in both diffs rather than discuss on talk page after first time.

Just a heads up. Not really sure what to do about this, but felt I should notify you.

Thanks.

--Activism1234 00:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The behavior of the participants at Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012)#About EllsworthSK restarting his campaign to hide Al Qaeda doesn't look too bad. If you are concerned about a specific issue, open a talk thread and try to persuade others to support you. Fast-moving pages like this one are so confusing that if you submit an edit warring complaint, it might be hard for an admin to understand it. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

ARBPIA warning

May involved, non-admin, editors issue ARBPIA warnings and log those warnings to the case page? nableezy - 14:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

[23]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Nableezy- though you theoretically could do this, I recommend that you ask an admin to issue the warning. If the admin declines, you can open an AE. Your own bargaining position in ARBPIA disputes will be enhanced if you stay with the most correct manner of doing things. I would give the same advice to anyone who has already been involved in stressful conflicts. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you implying this warning will not satisfy clause 2 of WP:DSN i.e "Discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator after giving due warning;"?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Not everyone may interpret that 'due warning' the same way. If someone is brought to AE and there is a claim that they were properly notified of the DS, an admin may want to be satisfied that the user was fully aware. The admin has to make a judgment call by looking at the user's interactions, and what people said to them. The admin might conclude from the situation that further discussion was needed. The same problem may occur at WP:AN3 if you get vibes that the person being reported is not fully aware of relevant policy, even though they were technically notified of the 3RR rule. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it goes against spirit of clarification by ARBCOM it was made to remove bureaucratic barriers so as I far as I understand regular editor warning is worth the same as admin warning anyhow it was also made clear if someone would abouse the process it could be considered disruptive.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
If you want your recent warning to a certain party logged in ARBPIA to 'stick' I recommend that you make clear on the person's talk page exactly what you consider to be a source falsification. A lot of hand-waving is not persuasive. You say "sources doesn't contain any of the things you added to article." Supply details please, as part of your warning. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Does this what you mean [24]?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, in this diff (see bottom of page) you finally give something specific, mentioning the 'unknown assailants', so that is helpful. If this blows up and goes to AE, your actions may be at the center of the discussion, so you don't want to become known for issuing incompetent warnings. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I hope that this user will not make any more edits like this anyhow his edits prior to warning shouldn't be part of any AE case if it will be filled against him.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Are you sure that it's a good idea to tie a warning to a specific issue? What if the warned editor disagrees whether the issue is actually an issue? And therefore concludes the warning is invalid? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Not clear on your point. Shrike believed this editor needed a warning due to a specific issue at The murder of Yehuda Shoham. In my opinion it would have been better for him to persuade someone uninvolved to do that. At least someone who had never edited that article or didn't usually support the same side as he does in disputes. If non-admins are going to issue DS warnings, they should be at the same quality level as those issued by admins. An involved editor does not always have the clearest judgment on the need for a warning. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
It's just a general comment. My question wasn't so much about who gives the warning but what the warning says. I would think that a general warning would be more effective than tying the warning to a specific issue because the warned editor may not agree that the cited issue is a legitimate issue. Sorry if I'm still being unclear. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Going ballistic over this is counter-productive. Both Shrike and Activism seem to assert that MTL fabricated two things not in the source. In one instance I document here (s)he paraphrased a source still on the page, contrary to their assertions, and they could only object to his paraphrase, which replaces 'rebound' with 'ping', and writes 'chanced' since the sources do not speak of a rock deliberately aimed, but describe a trajectory in which the baby fell victim from a rebounding rock etc. The second instance is a clear case of editorializing, and could have been removed without fuss, with a reminder on his page not top editorialize. Throwing templates everywhere is rather pointless, as is running to mummy or daddy over tiffs.Nishidani (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The edit wasn't a simple mistake. It was a premeditated intentional edit that inserted personal opinions and bias. Thus, rather than just remove it, I politely informed the editor to refrain from this, so he could understand for future scenarios and not repeat it. That was all. Also, there is no reason to paraphrase anything (and I have yet to check whether it does say "rebound"), but references used there write that the stone smashed into his head, which is how it's written currently. --Activism1234 19:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Unrelated to Shrike/warning/uninvolved administrator, do you feel, as I, Shrike, and Crystalfire do, that Mac's insertion (see [|here] and [|here]) constitutes personal opinions/bias, possible WP:OR, and source falsification? None of the sources said that the stone "pinged" and then just happened to hit his head, and I've looked through each one with ctrl-F. The sentence about the attack being "exploited" is also a personal opinion and is unreferenced, and demonstrates a clear bias. This isn't to file a case against the editor, but rather because my comment about refraining from such edits on his talk page got crossed out with a "Fuck off you ungrateful moron" as the reply from Mac. So if an uninvolved admin like yourself can simply say whether it is a wrong edit that should be refrained from, the user can be clarified and understand for future scenarios.
Thanks. --Activism1234 19:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I have asked further clarification of ARBCOM member [25].--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

@Activism1234: What makes you think that Maculosae tegmine lyncis intended his edit to be supported by any sources? Maculosae appears to be a new account and probably isn't familiar with Wikipedia's rules on WP:V and WP:OR. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Didn't realize he was a new account, his user page/talk page seemed to have a lot more info. But thanks for the info - I trust you, and wouldn't it be better then to tell him on his talk page specifically what was wrong with the edit so he doesn't repeat it again? That's what I did, and he told me to "fuck" off, which concerns me, because it would appear then the message didn't go through. --Activism1234 21:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
A Quest for Knowledge, I looked at Mac's logs, and it appears that he created an account over a year ago, in April 2011. He should've known by now not to make those types of edits, but I think the comment would've suffice anyway. The problem was that he didn't care for it, and just wrote "fuck off," increasing the likelihood that it will just happen again because he simply doesn't understand what was wrong. --Activism1234 22:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
@Activism1234: My apologies. I thought it said April 2012. I struck thru that part of my comment. Obviously, there's no excuse for saying "fuck off", but I still think that a better way to handle the situation is to simply revert with an edit summary of "Unsourced". The fact is that you do not know what Maculosae was thinking when they made that edit. It's possible that they deliberately misrepresented the sources. It's also possible that they made an edit without looking for sources. Since we are supposed to assume good faith, it's preferable to assume that this was an honest mistake.

Also, consider that by making potentially false accusations, you've unwittingly switched the debate from Maculosae's edit to whether your accusation has merit. Sorry to be crass about it, but wouldn't you rather be discussing Maculosae's edit and not whether or not your accusation has merit? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologize, it's fine. I'll keep in mind what you wrote though for next time, about writing in the edit summary box rather than the talk page. The thing is, I honestly felt that the second sentence he put in (not the "pinged" part) was representative of a clear bias designed to vandalize the page, but I have internalized what you wrote and will take it into consideration in the future, so I appreciate your comments. Is there more to discuss about Mac's edit? If so, I'd be happy to discuss it. My intention wasn't to shift the discussion in any way, and I apologize for any inconveniance. Thanks.--Activism1234 23:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
@A Quest for Knowledge: The reason for tying a DS warning to a specific article is that a warning should be given for a reason. It has been expected that an admin would give a warning about the kind of behavior that was causing concern, so the person would have a chance of fixing the problem. That way, sanctions will be issued only when the person continues with problematic edits after a warning. If you check WP:ARBPIA#2012 you will notice that some of the warnings logged this year mention the reason why they were given, either in the log or in the actual warning on the user's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry Ed but there are no such requirement the only thing that policy say its " Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.".There are no requirement of bad conduct for recieve a warning and its clear from ARBCOM clarification.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in. i didnt properly understand 1rr rule and was blocked without getting a warning. This is history but i never wanted to edit badly and thought this was not right. Crystalfile (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: OK, I understand where you're coming from. I took a closer look at that discussion and one of the allegations against Maculosae is that they vandalized the article, which is flatly incorrect and I've left a comment to that effect at that discussion.[26] An admin, hopefully, wouldn't make that mistake.
@Activism1234 and @Shrike: From what I can gather, Maculosae made an unsourced edit, something that probably happens thousands of times a day on Wikipedia. Rather than start with the accusations, why not just revert as unsourced? That puts the ball in Maculosae's court to find sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Well if it was just the first part about the rock being "pinged" rather than smashing through his head (the latter is supported by many references in the article), then yes, I would completely agree with you. However, he went further, inserting his own biased political opinion, claiming that this child's death was somehow "exploited" by politicians, and wording it as well in a biased manner. That was really the issue to me, not the "pinged" part which I would've just simply corrected. And I would've liked for it to just stop right there, and he'd know for next time and not repeat it, but I'm not sure where this is going to end up. Thanks. --Activism1234 21:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, thanks for clarifying the part about vandalism. I thought that his edit would as well constitute nonsense (once again, not referring to the "pinged" part), but I see now that it goes further than that. I appreciate it, and apologize if any offense was made. Thanks. --Activism1234 21:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

New Pages newsletter

Hey all :)

A couple of new things.

First, you'll note that all the project titles have now changed to the Page Curation prefix, rather than having the New Pages Feed prefix. This is because the overarching project name has changed to Page Curation; the feed is still known as New Pages Feed, and the Curation Toolbar is still the Curation Toolbar. Hopefully this will be the last namechange ;p.

On the subject of the Curation Toolbar (nice segue, Oliver!) - it's now deployed on Wikipedia. Just open up any article in the New Pages Feed and it should appear on the right.

It's still a beta version - bugs are expected - and we've got a lot more work to do. But if you see something going wrong, or a feature missing, drop me a note or post on the project talkpage and I'll be happy to help :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Deucalionite

Just FYI, I've filed the report now, in case you want to have a look: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Deucalionite. Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Curious

Do you recall my previous concern over IPs and wondering if they had a puppet master that was evading AA2 restrictions? Here an IP[27] canvasses for reversion. Later Saguamundi[28] canvasses for the same edit. Saguamundi has been blocked for socking[29]. Future Perfect blocks Saguamundi for evading his block by using anon IP[30]. This where Saguamundi used multiple names(socking), notice the IP[31]. Another sock investigation, notice the IPs which corresponds to the ones I was encountering[32]. Odd how Noraton quit editing back in April 2012 after that sock investigation. --Defensor Ursa 21:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

AE

Hi Ed, regarding [[33]] it may be that this is their response [[34]]. I think Alssa1 needs guidance. I think they've not edited the article giving rise to the AE and are restricting their edits there to the talk page. --Flexdream (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

ARBPIA 1RR question

Are removals of BLP violations exempt from the 1RR? nableezy - 16:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. If you perceive a serious violation you can revert it once. If the person restores it, I suggest taking it to WP:ANI for immediate action. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, will do (or rather, Ill take it to BLP/N) nableezy - 18:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Breach of topic ban

Hey, sorry to bother you. Quick question.

An editor under indefinite I-P topic ban made the edit to this article, about Ahmadinejad's statements, which I believe are directly related to I-P. Also, I believe the edit constitutes WP:OR, as he/she draws his/her own comparison. Is the editor in breach?

Thanks. --Activism1234 23:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I asked the blocking admin to clarify the scope of the ban [35] before I saw this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
OK so I'll probably take this over there, rather than bother you. Sorry! --Activism1234 00:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
According to this,[36] Talknic was indefinitely banned from all I/P articles and discussions, broadly construed in July 2012. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Historylover4

Historylover4 (talk · contribs) is continuing with his behavior.[37] - where he first removes am image of an Israeli doctor with no edit summary, then when it is replaced adds images representing Palestinian and Turkish aid and then removes the Israeli image again, seems pretty conclusive (and is an I/P edit). Not sure what's best now and would appreciate suggestions. Plus his other edits in the last couple of days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

We discussed this editor previously at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 27#User:Historylover4. In my opinion you should open a complaint at WP:Arbitration enforcement. I can see the logic of a 6-month ban of Historylover4 from I/P topics. A complaint that is focused on obvious misconduct is best. A few well-chosen diffs might be convincing, though a good-faith explanation is possible for some of the diffs you've proposed. EdJohnston (talk) 05:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try to find time to do this. Oddly enough I don't think I've gone to AE before. Dougweller (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

User:71.178.108.23

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I've commented there. EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

MoS vandal IPs

You've rangeblocked this character before; they make changes to infoboxes that don't conform to the MoS.

The ranges are roughly 203.218. and 218.102.

Radiopathy •talk• 16:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Here are recent contributions from the /16 range associated with 203.218: range contribs.
  • Here is the same thing for 218.102: Range contribs.
Can you please review these contributions and specify some individual IPs who you think are making bad edits? Either vandalism or edits against the MOS or local consensus. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I have blocked 203.218.105.101 for two weeks because he fits the pattern. Also one of his edits was reverted by Clue Bot. A rangeblock of anonymous editing from 203.218 seems unwise since the range is very active. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It may be active because the person who is doing the MoS vandalism is IP hopping with both ranges and is very persistent! Maybe whack-a-mole is the only way. Radiopathy •talk• 00:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, now that I've had a good look, the 203 range is almost all edits by the MoS warrior; almost everything is related to The Beatles. A rangeblock there probably would not result in much, if any, collateral damage. Radiopathy •talk• 01:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that he sequentially uses IPs from the range. Blocking the latest single IP would be sufficient until he switches again. (Old IPs are not reused). If you still favor a range block, try to search your records and come up with links to the previous discussions. Making an SPI report is desirable for proper record keeping. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, here is the latest: 218.102.106.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Radiopathy •talk•
I've blocked 218.102.106.44 (talk · contribs) for two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
They're socking now: ‎Chowkatsun9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Radiopathy •talk• 11:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you see Chowkatsun9 vandalizing articles or breaking the WP:MOS? Or repeating any edits by the IP? EdJohnston (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I see exactly that; compare the contribs - overlinking, adding uncited content and edit warring on mostly the same articles. Radiopathy •talk• 23:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

They are now editing with another IP: 218.103.166.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Radiopathy •talk• 15:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

New IP blocked two weeks. To keep an eye on further edits from 218.103.*, see this rangecontribs. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

He's at it again with his registered account: Chowkatsun9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Radiopathy •talk• 00:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
...and a new IP: 218.102.109.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Radiopathy •talk• 00:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

And still another: 218.103.173.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Radiopathy •talk• 16:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for two weeks and 218.103.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for one week. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Your message

Hi Ed, I have now read the article and commented on the Oxfordian theory talk page sayign the tag can be removed as far as I am concerned. On another matter, there is a tl;dr thread that I started on AN/I. During that thread I discovered that the subject of the thread was on indefinite probation. For future reference, if I were to become aware of new problems involving this editor or someone else on probation, should I go to AN/I, AE or simply ask an uninvolved admin (such as yourself) to look at the issue mentioning the probation in my request?--Peter cohen (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You must be asking about WP:ANI#User:Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett and featured article of the day. If you perceive that someone's actions violate their Arbcom-imposed probation you can request enforcement at WP:AE. The wording of the probation is that the editor "is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. He may be banned for good cause by any administrator from any page or talk page which he disrupts." This sounds enforceable, so it only leaves the definition of disruption to be worked out by the responding admins. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Any chance of extending the Protection of the Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy

Hi, Ed; The protection you instituted on Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy didn't result in much productive reference to Talk, (except from those who were already referring to Talk) but that was at least in part due to the AfD on Sandra Fluke that recently resulted in a "delete". On that page, several editors made constructive suggestions that the prior consensus on the scope of that page should change, and that in hindsight, it needs a LOT of editing down. Have put concrete editorial proposals on Talk, and asked the involved parties to comment. Have a certain fear that the Tendentious revert wars will begin the second Protection comes off, and would like to give a substantive discussion on Talk a chance first, before edit warring scares them off. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If an edit war starts up again after protection expires, you can consider making a new request at WP:RFPP. I think we need to wait and see if the expiry of protection will lead to any positive results. There was good participation in the AfD and in the DRV, so there are a number of editors who care about the article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Your message

Thank you for the message. I have responded at AN3. Please also see this RFPP request. Frustrating situation indeed. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Technical move request

Hello AjaxSmack. Please see Talk:Bat lau dung laai#Alternative move to Cantonese transcription. You should probably discuss this move with Deryck Chan if you think this was a bad idea on his part. If you disagree, the best plan is to ask Deryck what options for appealing his decision he can suggest. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't really care where the article is moved but I am opposed to users unilaterally overriding a RM that was just closed. Why bother having the RM process if the consensus can be ignored days later? Why should I have to waste my time opening a whole new request in such cases? If RM admins are too squeamish to revert such moves, they shouldn't hang around WP:RM. —  AjaxSmack  02:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
You can appeal this at any venue you think appropriate, but you chose to file this item as a Technical Request. The instructions for such requests say not to use the technical option if "there has been any past debate about the best title for the page". Another possibility is you could ask Deryck to undo his own move until such time as he wants to open a new formal move discussion to consider his proposal. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

German language material at AE

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at John Carter's talk page.
Message added John Carter (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Edit summaries.

I have a question regarding a comment that User:Kudpung left on my rollback request. He says he's out of town, so therefore I'm asking you. He mentioned to try not to use my edit summaries as an expression of thought. I tried to get more info. about this, but I couldn't find it on any of the Wikipedia guidelines. Where can I find this? Is it not anywhere because people with rollback rights are held to a higher standard? Thanks. Lighthead...KILLS!! 15:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Kudpung has been editing today, so you could ask him. From a quick look at Special:Contributions/Lighthead I see that you've been commenting in some detail in your edit summaries at History of drum and bass. These comments may have value for improving the article, and in case you change anything controversial, others may want to understand your logic. Your observations will be easier for others to access if you include them in a talk page comment. Also your signature is garish, and it might be helpful if you could tone it down. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps this is based on the WP:REVTALK approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I also will tone down my signature. I have actually noticed it to be prominent, to say the least. Thanks, again. Lighthead...KILLS!! 16:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Here's the new one. It's actually my old one. Thanks for the advice. Lighthead þ 16:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection please

an anon has been removing sourced info from the lede and otherwise making non-nuetral edits to the article Blue Army (Poland): [38]. Could you semi-protect?Faustian (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Semi three months. If this guy continues, someone should check if he is using an open proxy. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you!Faustian (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sherrod Brown

I would ask you to rethink the protection because there does not appear to be a true dispute here. Setting aside for a minute that what we have is one editor warring against three others, what is really happening is that User:Arbor8 warned User:Organthief1949 on the 15th about adding something to the article, asserting BLP. See User talk:Organthief1949#August 2012. Organthief then turned around and started deleting things based on flimsy and untrue bases. It seems clear to me that this is just a pointy and disruptive snit, and he should be dealt with on that basis, rather than allowing his actions to prevent all editors from improving the article. -Rrius (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so that happened on a different page. But protection still doesn't seem right. One editor is acting disruptively, and his or her rationales for deletion are still flimsy or untrue. If that editor is edit warring, then the right course would seem to be warning and, if necessary, blocking that editor. Frankly, a little note from you advising him or her to stop edit warring and participate at the talk page would be enough. -Rrius (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I shortened the protection to one day. Others seem to have left adequate warnings for Organthief1949 already. If the problem continues when protection expires let me know, or report it at WP:AN3. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Arbor8 was the user engaging in edit warring. If you look at his edit history and his talk page (especially the archives) you will see that he seems to crave conflict. You will also see that an alarmingly high percentage of his edits are reverts. As for CAFTA, I simply made a mistake. I really did not see that in the source. I also did not go on a "disruptive snit." My edits were made in good faith. Organthief1949 (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Your proposal at AE

Hi Ed. I like your suggestion at AE and User_talk:Volunteer_Marek#Close_by_agreement.3F in general, as it does not involve banning constructive editors (and I consider both sides constructive). It's refreshing to see a non-ban proposal at AE. However, I'd like to point out some things (and of course, you should keep my biases in mind, but also please note I've not been involved in the editing of those Baltic articles).

Your proposal seems to identify VM as a guilty party, based as far as I can tell on two pieces of evidence: 1) his past involvement in EEML and 2) his combative language. The first of those is an old 2009-2010 story that should have, IMHO, no bearing on present day issues (also, see Lothar von Richthofen 's comment). The second one, I agree with you, is more worrisome; I myself have told VM several times to be more civil. This has not achieved much, and perhaps a temporary and voluntary topic ban is a good ramp up to drive the point about WP:CIVIL home.

That said, I do have trouble agreeing that VM is the only guilty party. Consider what an uninvolved editor has said here, and all the evidence VM presents. While VM may score worse than Skäpperöd's with regards to civility, I think he has a point about the other editors editing disruptively, misrepresenting the sources, tag teaming to remove content they don't like, and trying to use AE to enforce their dominance. As far as I am concern, their actions are much more damaging to our project than VM's incivility. To reward them for this behavior by removing VM from the area is giving them exactly what they want. Are you sure this is the the message you want to send - in essence saying to Skäpperöd "you did nothing wrong, I agree with you, let me help remove VM from the area so you can edit without his input"?

Personally, I would strongly suggest trying to get all parties to voluntarily remove themselves from Königsberg article for some period of time, and then, adopt a group-1RR on it (as in, all parties mentioned in this request agree not to revert more than once per day as a group on all Baltic topics). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

PS. I also want to point, as an academic (and VM is one, too), the accusation of providing false sources is much, much more uncivil to us than using a cuss word. I am not totally surprised VM lost temper in replying to that. He shouldn't, but please note it was not him who started the chain of personal attacks here. In essence, Skapperod is complaining there that "I started the incivil fight but the other party had the gall to join it in kind!". So if we are going to talk about civility and NPA, both sides seem to be in error here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I have responded below your statement at AE [39] to keep the discussion about your proposal in one place, if this should rather be moved to "my" section then please feel free to do so. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
@Piotrus: Don't lobby on talk pages of AE admins like you did here and at John Carter's talk. This lobbying-for-each-other was a central issue before, cf WP:EEML#Piotrus, and I just gave you a great load of AGF [40] that this was a thing of the past.
I also think that Ed Johnston is aware that the "uninvolved comment" by My very best wishes you pipelinked is from the renamed Biophys account, and that the AE admins know who of the other commentators were on the list, too. I am also convinced that EdJohnston does not want that kind of a discussion to occur on his talk page. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I was not aware that MBW is Biophys; in this case he is not uninvolved, certainly. But you have no right to argue that I have no right to participate in the related discussion. And I am very disappointed to see that despite my explicit concerns, you keep on dredging the old events to question others AGF. When will you forget the old battlegrounds and move on? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

AN3 report

Hi Ed. Regarding your comment here and my report at WP:AN3, I just wanted to clarify - there is a 3RR violation in that RightCowLeftCoast made 4 reverts between 22:13 27 August and 17:45 28 August. I added the additional revert - just outside the 24-hour time frame - solely to show that there's a longer pattern here. But even setting that aside, I'm seeing 4 reverts within about 19 hours. Of course, you might view some of the reverts differently than I - I just wanted to make sure I presented them clearly. MastCell Talk 19:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

AE close

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Skäpperöd's talk page.
Message added 13:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks

I replied on my talk page as well, but in case you didn't see it - thanks for closing the Debresser case; if I'm unable to be online please do not hesitate to take whatever action seems necessary. I much appreciate your courtesy notification but was unable to respond until today. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Your proposed sanction didn't get enacted, but the thing is in the AE archives now. If the same problem recurs again, the past issues will be back on the table. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I was not happy about that proposed sanction anyway, as I think was clear from my comments. It appeared that the editor did not understand 1RR at all, and I think now he does, so hopefully he won't show before us again. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion

Since KC mentioned the discussion at his talk page at AE, what's your take on the question posed there: is the comment I am complaining about a personal attack or not? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you asking about "I believe that no one can honestly doubt VolunteerMarek, Piotrus and other members have changed their ways." I personally have limited toleration for rehashing of EEML, but I can imagine some situations where it is fair to mention it. His use of 'doubting' seems backwards. He means to say, 'I doubt that VM, Piotrus and others have changed their ways.' EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe we are all agreed on the intended meaning. What Piotrus is asking is if this rises to the level of a sanctionable PA. I opine that it is insufficient for sanctions, by itself. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
That's the phrase I am asking about, yes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see this as a personal attack and I wouldn't recommend imposing discretionary sanctions just for this. EdJohnston (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Very well. In light of expressed doubt by two admins whether the comment I considered to be a personal attack really was such, and following my personal preference for WP:FORGIVE, I agree to withdraw my AE request. I hope M.K will see this as a gesture of good will, and I am sure that AE admins have more pressing concerns anyway. (I am not familiar with the procedure for withdrawing AE request, I hope this comment will allow you to take any steps necessary for that end). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hold Your Head Up

When I think of Hold Your Head Up, I think of the song, not the album. I can imagine that is what the general public thinks as well. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 22:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Commented at Talk:Hold Your Head Up (song). EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Requesting an advise

Hello. As one of the administrators of that AE case against me, please advise me what should I do regarding following images. Those “images” describes basically all my contribution as “nationalists”, while I and others clearly showed that they aren’t [41][42]. I regard circulation of such images across Wikiepdia as further damaging my flawless name with reputation and serves only for a further instigation of a battleground. M.K. (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The text in old AE cases is simply archived, not deleted. Since there will be no links to those images from anywhere but the AE archives (and now, from my talk page) they will not come to the attention of very many people. I would recommend that you let this go. The images themselves do not mention your name. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

AN3

I reported what I considered a violation of 1rr at AN3 since I thought it a clear cut offense. Since the report is still open and continuing to grow, perhaps AE is a better venue for this? Ankh.Morpork 15:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No, AE takes forever. Just wait a few hours. It is usually best if a variety of admins have a chance to look at these cases. In my opinion the report has an obvious conclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

On this subject, this AE complaint was filed over a week ago and still has not been dealt with. Could you perhaps comment or close? Ankh.Morpork 21:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Bulgaria protection

As soon as your protection expired, the same bunch of different IPs has returned. Would it be possible to reinstate protection? CMD (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I've asked Future Perfect for his opinion. Let's see if he replies. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
User:‎Canterbury Tail has fully protected it, asking for renewed discussion. Fut Perf was involved in previous discussion and reverting, so I don't think they would want to touch the area with admin tools. I doubt discussion will solve anything, given the behavioural problems surrounding this (I say this of course as an involved user). CMD (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
FP may not be able to impose protection himself, but he is familiar with how ARBMAC discretionary sanctions have been used in the past. He can still give an opinion if he wants to do so. Regarding Canterbury Tail's action, I liked his comment at Talk:Bulgaria#Protected that the established editors should join in a discussion even if the other side won't reciprocate. If the dispute is still running after many months, opening an RFC would be useful if only for the record. Your mention of 'behavioural problems' suggests that you think admins will need to intervene. If the issue is ultimately going to ANI or AE, having a completed RFC would strengthen your case. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't really want to take it AE, and even less to ANI. If I did, I don't think I'd need more than what I posted on the RfM page/talkpage, the fact that Ximhua came back after not editing for a bit and made that edit about once per day having apparently given up on the dispute resolution process they embarked on, and the repeated canvassing. Ximhua actually attempted to start an RfC, but didn't do it properly so it never happened. The new SPA has actually restarted discussion with a very long post, so protection works, it seems. If I may ask, how does an RfC strengthen anything more than a previous talkpage discussion and a previous DRN discussion has? I'll start one if need be, after a bit of renewed talkpage discussion. CMD (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
If you are asking for review, it helps if a quick glance at the talk page will make the point for you. At present all I can tell from a quick glance at Talk:Bulgaria is that there is a dispute. The talk page has a FAQ. Do you think you could get consensus to have a question about the founding date added to the FAQ? EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you'd see much more than a dispute from a quick glance at an RfC either. I had a response for the latest talkpage comment on the Bulgaria talkpage, but Canterbury Tail removed the comment I was responding to due to civility concerns. I think consensus could be achieved to add to the FAQ in the same way the consensus for the original edit arose, that is that it will be there (as I and others think it was, although we are involved), but it will be opposed by the same SPAs trying to insert the truth, and who consider the removal of this truth vandalism. I simply can't see a way at the moment to separate the content from the behaviour. CMD (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion

If you have a minute, and are willing to help, would you please mentor/guide Mollskman with regard to the dangers of WP:EVADE? You'll find his comments at the bottom of the Zero Dark Thirty talk page, using this IP. It seems the more he and I discuss it, the deeper he digs the hole, hence someone else might have more luck at helping him out of it. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

48 hours to 74.97.18.207 (talk · contribs) for evading the block of Mollskman (talk · contribs). EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks for the quick resolution. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I have extended Mollskman's block to match that of the IP. It would be somewhat ludicrous to allow the main account to edit whilst the sock is still blocked. Black Kite (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Guidance

I recently nominated two articles for DYK, both IP related. Both were initially passed as satisfactory, one by an uninvolved editor. Despite this, user Maculosae tegmine lyncis has now disapproved both nominations in quick succession. Here, he refers to unidentified POV problems and that "article written in pidgin". In my other nomination, ratified by a neutral editor, he states that "many unreferenced paragraphs", despite every section in the article being well sourced. I consider his comments without any merit and deliberately disruptive. I ask that you inspect these nominations and advise me on how to proceed with this blatant agenda-driven harassment. Ankh.Morpork 16:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK has its own review process that helps ensure neutrality. Not clear that I can add much to the discussion going on there. EdJohnston (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

About discretionary sanctions

I'm a little rusty on one detail: do we only warn editors of discretionary sanctions when their behaviour has already been deemed problematic, or can we also issue a "by the way..." type of notice about discretionary sanctions? I ask because of the Esc2003 AE request; basically, trying to understand if it's appropriate to leave him a note about the sanctions without saying whether (s)he's editing against policy now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I personally would be uncertain about leaving a logged warning if the editor was being completely correct and seemed willing to negotiate. Nobody has yet added any info in the Esc2003 complaint that would normally merit a warning, though I haven't checked out every diff. If there is truly nothing wrong, leaving a generic notice is possible without making an entry in the case log. Formal warnings are sometimes challenged so it is best if you can give a reason. EdJohnston (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (TPS) I don't believe good cause is needed to place a user "on notice" of discretionary sanctions (although they must have edited pages within the topic area in question). However, DS warnings are usually used to educate the user, rather than to fulfil an arbitrary prerequisite. Therefore, if a user is not obviously disruptive, we usually wait until misconduct or problematic editing before issuing them with a notice.

The format of the actual notice can vary. Although the template that exists for these notices is the best resort, any typed notice that fulfils the requirements (§4) can be logged as a "notice" on the case decision page. HTH. AGK [•] 13:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I'll just leave it alone in this case, then. I do have some concerns the user is not communicating especially well, but that's not necessarily sufficient to leave a warning, at least not yet. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
It was clarified by ARBCOM member that anyone can give warning an as far as I understand the bad conduct is not a prerequisite to receive one [43] [44].--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The wording of {{uw-sanctions}} says "..if you continue to misconduct yourself..". Unless some bad conduct has already occurred, I don't see what 'continue to misconduct yourself' could be referring to. EdJohnston (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I see you point further clarification probably needed from ARBCOM.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The section #4 from WP:AC/DS that AGK linked to above says, "Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways.." Notice the word 'misconduct.' Did Arbcom say anything recently that implies that bad conduct is not a prerequisite to receiving a warning? EdJohnston (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone can argue if WP:AE will be brought against them that the warning they received is invalid?For example this warning [45] just used one of templates.Does it valid warning?(I think yes).--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
What problem do you see with the ARBPIA warning to Spesh531? It is better if the person giving the warning identifies the problem, but except for that it looks OK. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ed

Thanks for that note, Ed, but I don't think it would change things. It was by wiki email (Indirectheng <KillAllEuropeans@hmamail.com>) and I only read it accidentally because while I usually just eliminate this stuff on sight as spam, I clicked the wrong section and it came into view, and I copied it before binning. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Indirectheng (talk · contribs) has already been blocked per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Spentloose324. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Uh, User:JarlaxleArtemis. Well done, and thanks to the boys in the back room, who nail where it comes from. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Gates of Vienna

Hello there. IP editor blanking Gates of Vienna. Possibly the same user who has done it several times in a row now entering as IP. Could you have a look there please? Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I put on a week of semiprotection, which should at least cover the period of the AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Now will you rangeblock?

‎218.103.166.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Radiopathy •talk• 03:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Radiopathy •talk• 04:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you/please help

Issues about the editing at Anne Block are now moot since the article was deleted and two editors were blocked for socking. EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thank you. This is in reference to the message you left on my talk page. I apologize if the formatting is off. I am not the same person as the user you specified, but we live together. I was attempting to provide a neutral re-write of the article as specified by the editor who deleted the first article. The process is somewhat frustrating because we have both gone through the effort of locating over 25 secondary and primary sources and have attempted inline citations for every point. The most relied upon sources in the article come from the secondary sources with the best reputations. For instance, a Seattle Times investigative report about the subject is referenced multiple times because the Times is the leading daily in the region and because the Times investigative reporters have won multiple Pulitzers in the last decade for their work. The Times article summarizes many of the primary sources in a 1200 word front page story that went out to over 1.5 million readers. The Times sourcing is supported by citations from virtually every other media outlet in the Seattle area. I would love to work with the subject or the community to achieve a fair, neutral, balanced article but instead of a collaborative project, the subject simply whitewashed the material and then wikipedia deleted it. We have attempted to follow the wikipedia guidlines, while the subject whitewashed the previous versions, removing all sourcing and writing in the first person. this is a matter of regional import, and the subject has introduced herself into the limelight. I believe the individual meets and exceeds all of the notability requirements. The subject has been covered by all major media outlets and has actively participated in the political process, thrusting herself into the public view via multiple recall attempts of elected officials, each of which requires some 40,000 signatures to obtain. The subjects of Block's lawsuits and recalls have wikipedia pages, as do the municipalities and individuals she has waged battles against. . What can I do to either complete the neutral re-write or request the original article to be reposted? Thank you Deception passer (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

(Removed a repost of material from User talk:Deception passer#Your message/Anne Block)

Hello Deception passer. Notice the suggestion of User:JohnCD at Wikipedia:REFUND#Anne K. Block. He proposes that you review our policies and then consider if you want to open a WP:Deletion review. I would not be optimistic about your chances there. Though you attempted to follow Wikipedia policies, the result of your work was below the standard we expect. It would be safer for you to start out on Wikipedia by working in a less controversial area. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

(WhiteWriter has responded at User talk:WhiteWriter#Mentioned you as a possible resource. -EdJ). —WhiteWriterspeaks 11:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I asked User:WhiteWriter for help. I am ready to cooperate. Thanks, all best. --Sokac121 (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to WhiteWriter and Sokac121 for your responses. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

MAS

Matthew Anthony Smith (talk · contribs) is continuing to edit war [46][47], this time over whether a link to his personal website should be included in an article. Given the prior history of edit warring, this should in my opinion be sanctioned with a block, but I'm too involved to do so myself. Would you be willing to look into this? Cheers, —Ruud 14:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I have left notes for MAS and User:Swarm to see if they want to respond here. Let's wait for comments before anyone makes a decision. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how 1 revert from me counts as edit warring, I didn't revert them back after he reverted the second time, I know hes an admin or a higher then average editor level w/e that may be.. so I just left it alone, but I did put in the edit box perfectly a legible reason why for those 2 specific articles should have those links Matthew Smith (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
You can avoid sanctions if you will agree to wait for consensus from others that your links belong in those articles. You believe in the importance of your own website; this is not a surprise. Convincing *others* of its importance is necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC

You are invited to comment on the following probability-related RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Talk:Yitzhak_Kaduri.
Message added 02:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Zad68 02:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Violation of topic ban

User Talknic has been indef blocked from I-P articles broadly construed in July 2012 (he was previously indef blocked from I-P articles in 2011 as well).

He was also recently blocked for 72 hours for violating this topic ban. He was also warned after violating his topic ban again.

He has now violated his topic ban again by making this edit on the article, the talk page, and a bit later on the talk page again.

I think that this persistent dismissal of the topic ban represents a mindset and failure to follow Wikipedia guidelines and stay within the topic ban. The editor himself doesn't seem to be interested in editing other articles outside of the topic ban on Wikipedia either. Can you have a look into this and perform any necessary action? Thanks. --Activism1234 03:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Appears to me that that he is right on the edge of I/P conflict issues, but he may not have gone over. If you think action should be taken, ask User:The Blade of the Northern Lights or open a thread at WP:AE. I don't like that he is testing the edges of his ban. It is certainly within their discretion for the admins to make his ban even more definite if he has difficulty perceiving the edge. EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
OK I'll talk to Blade, forgot for a moment! Thanks. --Activism1234 04:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I have already received clarification of the extent of the TBan from The Blade of the Northern Lights in respect to the article [48]. It would seem I am within my rights sans any mention of I/P issues. Activism1234 was involved in that discussion. ... talknic 07:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you will be able to explain your addition of a POV tag to the article while avoiding all mention of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The article is called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. Other editors have successfully worked on completely-non-conflict-related improvements to articles about Israeli cities (for example) during the term of their ban. EdJohnston (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The POV tag is in relation to yet another obvious breach of NPOV, being the lack of Israeli representations towards Ahmadjinedad/Iran. It could include the Iranian nuclear issue, Iranian civil rights, the Jewish population in Iran etc etc, without mention of Palestine. My TBan meanwhile has been confirmed as specific to the I/P issue only 03:15, 14 August 2012 The Blade of the Northern Lights. The last NPOV issue I pointed out took over 16 months to resolve [49] despite No More Mr Nice Guy's tendentious attempts to maintain the breach over numerous discussions [50] - [51] - [52] - [53] - [54] - [55] - [56] - [57] ... talknic (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
False. Blade blocked you for 72 hours for making an edit on the exact same article as you just edited. You should've known better. Mahmoud Ahmdainejad and Israel is directly related to I/P - and certainly falls under broadly construed. --Activism1234 15:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Activism - False yourself. The 72 hr block was specifically because the particular UNSC resolution dealt with the I/P issue 13:31, 13 August 2012. We have dealt with this issue before ... talknic (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation update

Hey all :). We've just deployed another set of features for Page Curation. They include flyouts from the icons in Special:NewPagesFeed, showing who reviewed an article and when, a listing of this in the "info" flyout, and a general re-jigging of the info flyout - we've also fixed the weird bug with page_titles_having_underscores_instead_of_spaces in messages sent to talkpages, and introduced CSD logging! As always, these features will need some work - but any feedback would be most welcome. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Your message +

Thanks for your kind message on 3rr. I replied to it on my TP. On the other hand, I would like to request your kind help -also- against the disruptive editions of user:George Spurlin who has begun a campaign of removing the relavant categories from the articles considering the assassination, of a series of Turkish diplomats, by Armenian terrorist organisations; like in this case and other similars which are recognised as terrorism by everybody (except Mr Spurlin, maybe). All the best and thank you again. --E4024 (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

My logic is simple, category does not fit the article. Assassination does not equal to terrorism. This whole thing started after Ramil Safarov's pardon. Azerbaijani and Turkish users remembered the evil Armenians and started applying the terrorist label to every article they could find. I'm just trying to keep things neutral. George Spurlin (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Mr Spurlin, when we speak of Armenians I only remember our very good Armenian neighbours in Istanbul that used to bring me painted eggs in Easter, when I was a child. This is more related to ASALA terrorists and that is another thing... --E4024 (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
If George is mass-removing the category about 'Armenian terror' Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to Armenian militant groups I hope he will seek consensus before he continues. The WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard is one place he could take this. If he doesn't wait to get support from others, arbitration enforcement under WP:ARBAA2 might be the next step. There is a related discussion from 2007 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 15#Category:Armenian terrorism. However George's recent claim that an assassination should not be considered a terrorist attack looks unconventional. He appears to have used that argument to justify this category removal. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm open for discussion, but I was just being WP:BOLD. I believe the category doesn't apply to some articles and there are alternatives that could be added, like Category:Assassinated Turkish diplomats. Another thing I noticed is that the victims and their attacks have two different fork articles, for example Taha Carim and Assassination of Taha Carim. Doesn't it make sense to combine the two? George Spurlin (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. There is more here, please also look at the edit summary, really not very conventional... --E4024 (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree that such edits by George are completely unwarranted. If he really wants to write about Armenians who were falsely accused of terrorism, he should pay attention on people like Stepan Zatikyan. But unfortunately this is all a general trend which I would call "false neutrality". My very best wishes (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I don't understand any of this. If I am supposed to do something, I hope that an explanation will be forthcoming. EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Advice please

Please continue any discussions about the lead of Jerusalem over at Talk:Jerusalem. At present there is nothing going on that needs admin intervention. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please see here. I have been instructed to revert and have been threatened with AE sanctions by an editor. Currently, I do not understand why this is necessary. Could you advise me on whether his request is justified? Ankh.Morpork 20:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

A dramatic change in the status of Jerusalem will attract unfavorable attention quickly. You may be technically correct that the same information occurs later in the lead, but it is less visible there. If you reflect on the type of dispute that usually ends up at AE, this would be near the top of the list. I recommend that you revert your change. You should save up your credibility for some issue where you need it more, and where you have more chance of persuading others. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I reverted following your advice. It irks me though that a bold good-faith edit is enough generate AE threats ringing around one's ears. Not being aware of any prior discussion pertaining to my edit, I shall monitor the thread I initiated to gauge the level of support. Ankh.Morpork 21:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Ed, I am wrapping up my A/E report and it will be live shortly. -asad (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Ankh, the phrase 'bold good-faith edit' is too optimistic. Should admins (or someone else) publish a list of the articles where any tremor can lead to an earthquake? Surely you have some instinct for this. I hope you'll think twice before making 'bold good-faith edits' to Golan Heights or Gaza war, as well as Jerusalem. I hope you'll think with extra care before changing the *lead* of a sensitive article. EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
It is true that any tremor can lead to an earthquake but tremoring is still a preferable state of affairs then permanently remaining motionless, too afraid to move. The sensitivity of a topic should not preclude bold amendments and the process of BRD is for that very scenario and it is unfortunate that it has mutated into Bold, AE, Drama. I was not aware of any opposition to my edit which I considered to be reasonable and well-explained. Despite your exhortation to "think twice", I foresee that at the end of my cogitations, the same conclusion will be reached. Ankh.Morpork 21:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
When an article doesn't change, it is sometimes because there is no support for a change. If editors play around too much with the leads of sensitive articles, there could be a case for the community to impose tighter restrictions that force discussion to take place in advance. Did you personally search the talk archives of Jerusalem before making your bold change? EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
No, though before the inevitable "aha", I did check if there were active discussions and seeing none, I made my edit. I did not expect that it would be necessary to peruse the archives for a previous consensus, and were it to exist, permanently abide by it and avoid any subsequent bold edits. I have no problem in being reverted and then engaging in a lengthy discourse and assessing the support for an edit. What I object to is being prevented from making that effort of improvement in the first place. I didn't intend to drag you into a protracted discussion and I understand that I could have handled this more delicately, however I do not feel my actions merited that particular response. Ankh.Morpork 22:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, would you support sanctions at AE for a single legitimate edit? The material does appear twice in the lead. While there might not be consensus to remove it, there was no edit warring, the sourced information would still be in the lead, and there's no ongoing discussion on this particular piece of text. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I would not have brought AnkhMorport to AE myself for a single edit. He came here to request an opinion, which was given. The lack of any 'ongoing discussion' presumably omits the duty of the editor to reflect on the state of reality, which would suggest he is voluntarily deciding to step over a cliff. Admins have an innate bias to reduce drama, which kicks in whenever editors seem to ignore the drama possibility of their edits. Do they really not perceive the situation? You can make a bold edit to the article of some town in Israel where no real-world dispute is raging and nobody will ever complain. EdJohnston (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I understand why the edit was not a good idea. I follow that page quite closely. I was just wondering if you thought that edit was infracting on something to such an extent that you'd support sanctions for it. I gather the answer is "no". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I personally would not support sanctions for a single edit like that. It can't be ruled out that in a later AE, somebody would cite that as an example of lack of judgment. Since he asked for feedback and then he self-reverted, I think the slate is wiped clean. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Apropos, what do you think about this edit? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Too bad Dailycare didn't come here to ask for my opinion :-). At least he's been participating on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Ed, do you regard your opinions as that from an experienced Wikipedia editor, or an Admin? Since Ankh is claiming redundancy in the lead, he could have easily removed "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", as that is also mentioned in the exact same paragraph he is citing as grounds for removal of "though not internationally recognized as such." It is not a lack of judgement, it is a blatant attempt to push a POV into the first sentence of one of the most contentious articles on Wikipedia using false justification and without seeing discussion. For me, I would rather not waste my time engaging in the charade of feigning ignorance to that fact. I find my time here is better spent here ensuring that, when someone searches "Jerusalem" in Google, that the typical first result displays, truthful, accurate and proportionately balanced information. (BTW, I really do think you are great admin and I have never felt you have acted unfairly under any circumstances.) -asad (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could you review

[58] and [59]. I think this may merit a rollback and an ip block? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

IP blocked one month for ethnic abuse. Let me know if this editor reappears using another IP. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, Yitzhak Kaduri discussion section opened

Hi Ed, I am going to WP:AGF one more time and attempt to get Botsystem to discuss here, although based on his past behavior I'm not holding out much hope. If we don't get engagement from him in a day or two I'll take it to WP:DRN as you suggested. Zad68 12:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Good luck, I hope you get a response from User:Botsystem. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
No response yet... You might be interested to find out that Botsystem has been doing the exact same sort of slow edit-warring in of unsourced content at Moors (here's a recent example and the same sort of thing from two years ago), and attempts to discuss it with him didn't appear to be productive. Zad68 13:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Ed, there's now policy-based consensus between me and the other editor (Cpsoper) that the sentence should be removed. I've sent Botsystem invitations to participate in the discussion but he hasn't been editing. Because WP:DRN describes itself as "an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled," I can't see how WP:DRN can help in a case where the editor doesn't engage at all--according to this, Botsystem has never edited the talk page of any article. The PP expires tomorrow night. As a hypothetical question, let's say the sentence is removed, and Botsystem reverts without engaging in the discussion. Would that one edit be considered edit-warring? What would be the appropriate action? Still recommending WP:DRN? Zad68 13:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
If User:Botsystem has truly stopped editing, then he is unlikely to oppose your change. In any case, an agreement by only two editors is not exactly a sweeping consensus. Besides discussing on Talk:Yitzhak Kaduri which you have already done, running the dispute through WP:DRN would allow you to get people new to the problem to assess the issues. Assuming you find support there, this would strengthen your case if there are future disagreements. Sometimes people are blocked for 'edit warring against consensus' but usually this is when consensus is very clear, which I don't see yet. EdJohnston (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Can't you take off your admin hat and put on your editor hat for a second? You honestly don't see obvious problems with WP:V and WP:SYNTH with the edit under discussion? (If you're trying not to get WP:INVOLVED with the content, then I totally understand.) Zad68 14:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
DRN case opened here. Never tried this before, seeing how it goes. Zad68 14:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Ed, sorry about the late response been kinda busy with "real life"..but thanks for the notice Botsystem (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For your work across multiple noticeboards Pass a Method talk 15:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Parkinson's science learning project in Wikiversity

Hi. I'd like to bring your attention to a new learning project in Wikiversity. As you have been involved with the discussion on the wikipedia Parkinson's disease page I felt you might be interested in looking at the project and perhaps even contributing material to it. Please see my Talk page, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Droflet#The_Science_Behind_Parkinson.27s_learning_project , the subpage, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Droflet/ProjectDescription or the project itself , http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:The_Science_Behind_Parkinson%27s . It would be great if you could bring the project to the attention of others who might be interested in helping us develop it. Thanks.

Jtelford (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC) (My Wikiversity Username is Droflet)

Response from User:Oldtimer0 to the message on his talk page

This is old-timer0 the claim by ian.thompson who is claiming I am edit warring is without basis as there is absolutely positively no proof that evolution is happening or has ever happened I dare ian.thompson to show the wikipedia community as well as the world a single undisputed fossil that evolved from another life form.In fact I will save him the trouble do not bother looking as you will not find a single undisputed evolving life form in the fossil record also numerous experiments with fruit flies further proves evolution does not happen and has never happened. Mathamatical calculations vaporize the whole idea of life evolving in any way shape or form so ian.thompson would do well to look in the mirror and ask who is the one who is pushing wp:fringe, wp:or and is violating wp:rs by insisting that evolution is a fact when neither he nor anyone else has ever been able to point to a reliable and verifiable source that shows evolution has happened or is happening! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old-timer0 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If you have come to Wikipedia to express your opposition to the theory of evolution you are swimming upstream. Anti-evolution views are generally considered to be a WP:FRINGE theory on Wikipedia. See Talk:Evolution/FAQ. If you want to convince the world that the theory of evolution is wrong, you will have to begin somewhere else, not on Wikipedia. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

ScienceApologist back yet again?

Hi Ed,

I asked for help back in July, see User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 26#ScienceApologist back again.3F. Well, I've got another suspicious character, and I think it might be ScienceApologist again. I've opened a new case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist. Thanks for any help. Aarghdvaark (talk) 05:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Images2

Hello EdJohnston.

User:CrnoBelo does not want to accept a deal on images [60] [61], [62] removes deal . He does not want to accept conclusion mediators WhiteWriter. --Sokac121 (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing 3RR filing

I was copy pasting for accurate spelling of the editor from the talk and just copy pasted the page and forgot to delete the "talk" part from the header.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing 3RR filing from me too

I appreciate your help.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter

Hey EdJohnston. This will be, if not our final newsletter, one of the final ones :). After months of churning away at this project, our final version (apart from a few tweaks and bugfixes) is now live. Changes between this and the last release include deletion tag logging, a centralised log, and fixes to things like edit summaries.

Hopefully you like what we've done with the place; suggestions for future work on it, complaints and bugs to the usual address :). We'll be holding a couple of office hours sessions, which I hope you'll all attend. Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Man who Broke into Auschwitz

Ed. I'm quite new and really don't know how you get consensus. There are three editors on this article. I have reached agreement with Mysticumswipe on certain issues on the Talk page and proceeded to edit accordingly. Then as soon as the edit war complaint against Wikiwatcher is closed this editor returns to the page and starts reverting edits. Surely the place to reach consensus is on the Talk page. Thanks for guidance. Sceptic1954 (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Sceptic1954

It may be worth waiting an hour to see if he will engage in discussion. If not, a block may be necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC) No he has reverted a couple of edits.Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Sceptic1954

Ed As well as editing 'Denis Avey' I am editing the page on the book he wrote 'The Man who Broke into Auschwitz'. I fear Wikiwatcher may raise the same objections to my changes as I cite the Daily Mail article. I'd be grateful if you could keep an eye. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic1954 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

G4 speedy tag

Hey there Ed,

I'm a bit confused, and would like to clear this up for the future. I thought that any editor other than the article creator is allowed to remove the speedy deletion tag, if a valid reason is given (the reason I gave was eventually the same on given by Malik Shabbaz, who declined the tag)? Was there something else wrong that should be incorporated for the future?

Thanks. --Activism1234 05:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't work on deletion much, but I'd be very surprised if anyone was free to remove a WP:CSD#G10 tag or a WP:CSD#G12 tag. I don't know what the current practice is about G4. It doesn't look good to me that the proponent of keeping the article gets to remove that on their own initiative, without having an admin look at it. If that's allowed then anyone who wants to skip going to DRV has an easy out. They can just recreate the previously-AfDed article and then remove any G4 tags that anyone places. I'd suggest that removal of G4 by the re-creator of the article would justify admin attention. EdJohnston (talk) 06:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused... I didn't create the article. User:TheCuriousGnome did. I think this is a misunderstanding then. I have worked on expanding it, that's true. The tag itself [63] says:

If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself.

As an editor who did not create the article, I felt that I would be allowed to remove such a tag. The second time it was put up, I wasn't going to remove it again, because that would seem to me like edit-warring. But the tag's statements seemed to say that it'd be acceptable for a non-article creator to remove it, provided there's a valid reason. --Activism1234 06:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
(And another admin rejected speedy deletion, so I think it's safe to presume it didn't meet the requirements for speedy deletion). --Activism1234 06:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm not here to argue or anything, I just wanted to be aware of any policy I didn't know for the future. Thanks for your time. --Activism1234 06:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring.
Message added 21:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SudoGhost 21:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I've responded to your comment at WP:AN3, can you please take a look? - SudoGhost 03:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply there. I have nothing to add. If problems continue in the future let me know, or make a new report. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
So 3RR means nothing as long as some other discussion is at DRN? The report is "stale" because I have no intention of continuing to be harassed by the other editor with edit warring on my talk page? That's not even in regard to the same edit warring, and for the other page there will be no discussion and no resolution because I'm not going to be harassed by someone who can just edit war on my talk page whenever they decide. If 3RR means nothing I'll keep that in mind when disagreeing with another editor, I'll just harass them into going away and of course then the report will be "stale" a few hours after it was created, because they won't continue to edit war with me and then the report will of course be stale. As long as I edit war and harass others "within the rules" it's fine that I edit war far past 3RR on another page, I didn't know this. Thank you for informing me that 3RR apparently went away when I wasn't looking and AN3 is a waste of time. - SudoGhost 04:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for interjecting, I just can't help but notice that you already seem to be quite efficient at "harassing other editors into going away" when you disagree with them ;-) You probably know what (or whom) I'm talking about. If not - no big deal, just disregard the whole thing ;-) 98.113.203.22 (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
You need not apologize for interjecting, but I can't take any action on your comment unless I know what it's referring to. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I was curious to what was being referred to, and the only thing I can find that that seems to be relevant is this editor, who took the issue to ANI which resulted in the editor being blocked. They were eventually indefinitely blocked from editing and ended up with over 30 confirmed sockpuppets. Since ~July 2011 the only interaction I've knowingly had with that editor has been opening sockpuppet investigations, none of which were deemed frivolous in any way (and all of them resulted in a block), so if that is what is being referred to, I don't think I'm the reason. If that's not what is being referred to, then I have no idea. - SudoGhost 01:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Nah, you're wrong. It was a different editor, for different reasons. But it doesn't matter anymore, so let's just drop it ;-)98.113.203.22 (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I find that not only unlikely, but also an accusation about personal behavior that lacks evidence. Unless you'd like to substantiate your claim in some way, it's rather baseless and seems to be a matter of WP:NOTTHEM. Although I suspect you have no desire to reveal the name of the likely indefinitely blocked user due to your seemingly close knowledge of something you appear to have gone out of your way to look for; given your editing history it is rather odd you commented here, or even knew to. - SudoGhost 07:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Help with Anon

Russian nationalist? Who knows. But he is removing referenced info here: [64] and the word "Ukrainian" here: [65]. Help would be appreciated!Faustian (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Semiprotected the two articles. Let me know if he moves on elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you!Faustian (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Why didn't you respond to this?[66] Namely how these two edits[67][68] were the grounds for me edit warring. As I explained "What was removed was clearly wrong aka a 2011 reference for a 2012 event. See IC#19 here. Removal of wrong content The IC don't match the material they are referring to and the Ziv quote looks to be out of thin air. Where is it on either webpage? How is the removal of obviously wrong content edit warring?" Do you have a reply? Please note how Activism 1234 has had almost two days to fix those edits and reintroduce them and hasn't. It isn't like Activism isn't around WP for the last 48 hours either[69]. This post of his can be easily read as canvassing for AFD votes.[70]

Your improper block of me is a permanent record which has been least twice by other edits to trash[71] or misread my intentions[72]. Can you reverse what you did for the permanent record? Please write back....William 12:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If you believe material is wrong, you can remove it but your removal is subject to the 3RR limit. Only a small set of things are immune from 3RR. You can see the list of exemptions at WP:3RRNO. There is no exception to 3RR for 'obviously wrong content,' unless it is related to BLP, copyvio, or the edits of a banned editor. It is assumed that if you choose to remove what you consider to be obviously wrong content, you will not need to make such removals more than three times in one day. Persuading others on the talk page is the way to be sure you are correct about 'obviously wrong.' EdJohnston (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The Sikorsky article-

The rescue operation was very complex, as it was impossible to land near the crash site, leaving as the only options a hike along a steep mountainous path or a rope descent from the air.

A Israeli newspaper-

The rescue operation was complex, since it was impossible to land near the crash site, which meant that the only paths were a hike along a steep mountainous path or a rope descent from the air.

Do you think this is a copyright violation? I know there is the copyright problems board[73] but I don't know how to submit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs)

Yes, that is certainly too close to the original. Why not try to fix it yourself? If you are afraid of being reverted, just explain the problem on the article talk page and see what happens. EdJohnston (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I already put it on the talk page. Maybe I'll change it in the morning, because I'm leaving WP for the day very shortly. If you would like to go duck hunting, Syrian Air Flight 501 looks like the work of banned user Ryan Kirkpatrick.(He'd be a nominee for the all time worst spelling editor with over 1000 edits on English wikipedia. Syrian 501 has a few of his gems.) I CSD it, so feel free to shoot it down if you want....William 00:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

actress paoli dam

some highly conservative people taliban mentality people protected the actress paoli dam page because we want to add some information about her hghly explicit sex scene in film chatrak please i sincerely request please unprotect that page,please i HAVE Verified Links For The Edits Which We Will Make.i mean paoli dam can give explicit nude oral se xscene but we can't write about it ?

PLEASE the article Cartoon Network Latin America must have

Indefinite semi-protection due to Persistent vandalism.--OliverDF (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

At present neither side of this dispute is using any reliable sources. Nobody is offering proper explanations on the talk page. Since the IPs are no worse than anyone else, I don't see the case for semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

SPI review

There is a review that you are familiar with and might find interesting at the bottom of my talk page. As always, I'm an open minded fellow and think your experience may be helpful there. I've notified AGK who made the CU block and another CU. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ooops or not?

On the EW board, did you mean to say unless there is some pattern of long-term warring, there is no obvious reason to sanction StillStanding.? He is the orginator of the EW and I am the alledged edit warrior. I don't recall anyone asking for sanctions against him, so I thought you might have made a mental switcheroo.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It is normal to look at any reverts by the submitter. Also, Arthur Rubin said "..but the two immediate reverts by Scientiom, and the single unjustified revert by the nominator, may also separately constitute edit-warring." EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Thx  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 

Sanity check

Please let me know if you believe this is inappropriate. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't object to your comment, but I don't see why it is necessary. Your comment may somehow get others excited, in spite of your intention. Why not wait and see if any problem occurs. EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I thought it was necessary so that there's a public record in a location relevant to the article, and mostly to make sure nobody inadvertently teased LGR by coming to them with issues related to the article. Unfortunately, it did get someone excited. In fact, since then, they went to WP:ANI about it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Anyhow, for better or for worse, the matter is settled. Thanks for your input; I appreciate your lack of bias. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI/ANEW results around Bitcoin

I see that these "incidents" are closed, however the situation is still not really resolved; HowardStrong has continued to revert the correction even after he had agreed to it, and I have no reason to expect he would not again if I restored it. How can we get this article corrected without allowing him to turn it into an edit war again? Should I make one more attempt to get it fixed? --Luke-Jr (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

What correction are you speaking of, and where did he agree? EdJohnston (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
The BTC symbol correction; though he left it listed, he removed all the citations for it. HowardStrong agreed to the proposed compromise here. --Luke-Jr (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware of any correction to which he is speaking of. I have added to the article but I have not reverted any changes.--HowardStrong (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I will say this user has started edit wars in the Bitcoin article in the past. His changes are often very out there and thus controversial; yet he pushes them. (e.g. a tonal section in the Bitcoin article). I would take his claims with a grain of salt. --HowardStrong (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Finally, Luke-Jr is very close to the Bitcoin subject matter. He is a developer of Bitcoind. https://github.com/luke-jr This may violate Wikipedia policy regarding close subject matter.--HowardStrong (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it is a Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. He can't be making controversial changes without clear consensus. Reported. Thanks!--HowardStrong (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not Luke has a COI, it doesn't take away the need for you to get consensus for your own changes. COI does not disqualify Luke from editing here. EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll happily have my changes reverted if they are truly against consensus. Luke-Jr cannot provide proper consensus as a impassioned developer with an agenda and alone. I'll happily take a que from others, in which case has had little to no controversy.--HowardStrong (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

If you need to get outside opinions (besides Luke) that can be arranged. See WP:Dispute resolution. If you seem to be using procedural gimmicks to push Luke out of the picture, that can backfire on you. EdJohnston (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
It seems that editors agree that some kind of a capital 'B' with one or more vertical strokes through it can be included in the 'Symbol' line of the infobox, as a symbol for Bitcoin, analogous to the '$' for dollars. It appears that Luke-Jr made an entry in the infobox here on October 3 in which two alternative versions of the B symbol are included. It appears to me that there is now only one symbol in the infobox, so somebody must have removed Luke's alternative. In Luke's edit summary he says "Both symbols per agreement reached on Talk page." Has Talk:Bitcoin#Removed non-citations from the second symbol reached a consensus on this? If any more reverts occur before clear consensus is found, the article may be protected against editing. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
It appears that consensus might be found to use an image of a double-stroked B in place of the composed Unicode symbol that Luke originally wanted. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi, I noticed you had been discussing this issue and thought I'd point out that the user is attempting to delete several redirects at WP:AFD here. I closed it since AFD doesn't discuss redirects but I thought I'd let you know in case the user violated the agreements they made about the edit warring. Redfarmer (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Redfarmer, I see you have created an entry at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Douchemark. This looks like the right way to do it. EdJohnston (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union

Requesting page be locked. Article Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union has more than 3 reverts by an anonymous IP address...Posting a URL as a source to their commentary that I can not locate anywhere else nor find in published and or peer reviewed sources..

Here is the content added.

According to the Russian Orthodox Church's Patriarch Pimen, "I must say with a full sense of responsibility that there has not been a single instance of anyone having been tried or detained for his religious beliefs in the Soviet Union. Moreover, Soviet laws do not provide for punishment for "religious beliefs". Believe it or not - religion is a personal matter in the Soviet Union. [74]
This comment appears to be posted on an unreliable and unverifiable source.

Diffs



Since this IP continues to post this comment even after it has been repeatedly removed. I request that the page be locked out from anonymous editing for a duration of time set by your discretion.


LoveMonkey (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I've semiprotected for a month, since the edit warring doesn't show good intentions. I recommend posting on the talk page so newcomers to the article can understand the issue. The material being added might be germane, but puts undue weight on the single opinion of a religious official who might be assumed to be an ally of the regime he is defending. Historians evidently think differently about the existence of persecution. judging from the listed sources. This is complex enough to explain on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Xmike920

You warned Xmike920 (talk · contribs) about the possibility of a topic ban/editing restrictions after blocking him for edit-warring over time changes against consensus on the events of 9/11 last April and May. He's at it again: [79], [80], [81], [82] and others, none with an explanation or source. I've warned him that sanctions are possible, without response [83]. Acroterion (talk) 02:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I've issued an indef block due to the long-term edit warring and complete non-response to all comments from others. A topic ban would be more appropriate for someone who seemed willing to follow Wikipedia policy at least in some areas. In his whole career this guy has never left a talk page comment, not even on his own user talk. EdJohnston (talk) 08:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks: the refusal to engage and the stubborn insistence on his version of events even after explanations by other editors didn't look like they could be overcome. Acroterion (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet on Pendulum

Hi. You recently handled the editwarring complaint I made against 193.233.212.18 and blocked him when he used the sockpuppet Syrmath to continue. He seems to be at it again with a new sockpuppet: Sandro78 just reverted the Pendulum article. Since 193.233.212.18 has been the only one interested in this revert, I think that's pretty good evidence Sandro78 is another sock. Thanks for your help. --ChetvornoTALK 04:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but Sandro78 isn't a new account. He has been around since 2005. Perhaps we should wait until he edits again? Consider leaving him a warning. Feel free to open a WP:SPI case if you are confident it is the same guy. EdJohnston (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I didn't notice that. Yeah, maybe he's a different editor. His edit comment sounded like 193.233.212.18's. I'll see how it goes. --ChetvornoTALK 05:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
And here's another: [84]. a13ean (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I've opened an SPI at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Sandro78. Others are welcome to add their own information to that report. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! The ANI thread was already archived and I wasn't sure where the best place for this was. a13ean (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal

Hi Ed, I am unsure as for the template I am supposed to leave so I'll just place the diff instead: [85] Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem

Hi, I would appreciate it if you'll add your opinion here: Talk:Jerusalem#Better wording#We are running out of bits as you have participated in the discussion.--Tritomex (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I won't give my own opinion because I am acting as an admin on WP:ARBPIA matters. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

X-ray CT

Hey, I saw your note. Ah...I don't actually know who...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Got it now. I thought that the Israeli IP address tickled something in my memory, but I couldn't place it. (The last time I knowingly dealt with anything Nenpog-related was back in July when I blocked his original account for the topic ban violation.) The way he was editing today I strongly suspected he was an 'experienced' editor, but I didn't know who. If I'd recognized him up front, I wouldn't have wasted time on warnings, or let him get up to five reverts. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - ANEW

Thanks for your work at ANEW and elsewhere on the project. That was my first time at ANEW, so I would welcome any feedback if my editing or reporting was problematic (other than being a little sloppy, I admit). I realize you must be incredibly busy, so if you have no comment that's fine. -- Scray (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Scray. The behavior of the troublesome editor was extremely blatant, so it wasn't a hard case to close. Regarding your own participation, try to get a report to one of the admin boards quickly before making multiple reverts yourself. Since many people were watching this article you could have stopped after your first one or two reverts and waited for others to fix it. As to the time element, it can take 12 hours or more to get an admin response at many of the boards. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. -- Scray (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Dilemma

Hello,

The RFA against me was closed. Iadrian yu was told that he shouldn't fill such a spurious RFA in the future with the promise that he is still free to request for one against me.

I can't take it well. Iadrian yu is usually busy with requesting for blocks against me. Everyone can see that there is no too much common sense gleamed in his block requests. However, he begins groaning and mourning that there is so much disruption coming from me to Wikipedia that needs to stop therewith. Besides that it is a highly disruptive and contemptible behaviour, it is very dangerous as well, because not every administrator takes the trouble to investige the diffs upon which his accusations are based, and I assure you that Iadrian yu is an expert on groaning and mourning. This time his key phrase was "bad faith editing" shopping for a block, but there was another attempt of him in the past whose key phrase was "Nmate's unusual behaviour". It was also rejected ,however, once already he got a windfall [86] after incessant mourning over my disruptive editing [87] when I did not even think that I was in danger.
Again, the outcome of the RFA said nothing about the fact that Iadrian yu's persistent agitations for blocks for me should be sanctioned. When I report Iadrian for block shopping, he makes statements in an effort to give administrators the impression in a way that they tend to lump me together with him, e.g. the fact that I report him for block shopping is also a block shopping.

Your opinion on the matter caused a set-back in the outcome. After that I commented on it at the talk page of admin The Blade of the Northern Lights including the fact that I think that Iadrian yu should have been blocked for this. Surprisingly, Iadrian yu too appeared there saying that "I am sorry, but isn`t this block-shopping???" [88] He reported me in his lates RFA, yet he had the temerity to claim there that "I accuse him of various things without any solid evidence" while it was him who lodged an RFA against me. Behaving this way takes some chutzpah....................you let Iadrian yu elude a well deserved sanction under AE leaving me in the pickle of what should be done with him, because this problem won't resolve itself. I may still fall prey to Iadrian yu's harrasments, and his aggressively trollish behaviour. --Nmate (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, Iadrian yu's AE complaint was frivolous, but your response to his complaint wasn't effective either. Admins become discouraged when neither side is saying anything they can understand. Better to leave it the way it is now. If you don't have to interact with him, you should leave him alone. If a dispute occurs about a particular article and you have to file a complaint with admins, explain clearly how the article benefits from your contribution, and don't focus on what he may have done to you personally. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you that my response was not effective. Iadrian yu's reports do not make too much sense to me, and I can't respond to anything that does not make sense to me. Without being able to figure out how Iadrian yu comes to such weird conclusions regarding my edits, I always begin looking askance at him when reading his reports. I usualy do not edit articles Iadrian yu edits.
Iadrian can't nail me based on any valid evidence. Therefore, he has no other option but to press charges using the latest edits of mine with outright false misrepresentations and the diffs simply can't support what he claims they show while mourning and groaning that there is so much disruption coming from me to Wikipedia that needs to stop at once. What a contemptible behaviour !
Iadrian yu requested for arbitraion against me shortly after I had requested that User: Samofi's talk page access be revoked. Just as Samofi, Iadrian yu likes editing the English Wikipedia alongside Hungarian users of whose favourtie subject is history, to represent the the interest of the opponent's side in writing articles , where his contributions almost always appear to be aimed at removing Hungarian-related content, or modifying content to be more anti-Hungarian.
The reason why Iadrian yu requested for arbitration against me was that Iadrian yu thinks that the anti-Hungarian side may loose of their turf after Samofi's talk page access was revoked. I do not endorse this this type of way of thinking at all which seems to be very much like battleground behaviour at the highest degree, but that is what Iadrian yu is up to. Very disappointing.--Nmate (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Folding@home FA nom

Sorry to bug you over this if you've watchlisted the page, but if not I wanted to let you know that I've responded to your comments and made some changes to the prose. • Jesse V.(talk) 06:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm finishing off Emw's comments, so we're getting close to waiting on your final comments/opinions if you have any. Are you done with the page? • Jesse V.(talk) 19:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm now assuming that you're done with the page. Thanks for leaving your comments though. • Jesse V.(talk) 23:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

arbitration enforcement provides an unclean hands wrong

Ubi jus, ibi remedium, "Where there is a right, there is a remedy." What do you propose as the mechanism for enforcing the unclean hands provision? You edit summary was incorrect, I did not comment out of my section, I provided a mechanism where one seemed to be missing. What is the mechanism for getting the request vacated because of unclean hands? It sounds like all it takes is one admin deciding to do it. Do you have a better idea?--Africangenesis (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm still curious whether the unclean hands protection exists or not and what the mechanism is for providing it. I accumlated evidence to support the defense. thanx. --Africangenesis (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
As the closer of the AE, I did not find your 'unclean hands' argument to be persuasive. Your sanction can be appealed via {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} at WP:AE. If you are not satisfied with the results there, you can appeal to Arbcom. I'm afraid that you did not put on a very good case for yourself at AE. When some people are claiming that you have a battleground attitude, it is unwise to supply even more evidence of that fact during the discussion. If you are willing to contribute to other areas in a constructive way for six months, you could consider an appeal then, which might have a chance of success. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warrior at Insulin that you just blocked is back as an IP

Hi Ed, the edit-warrior Keerthi78 (talk · contribs) you blocked here is duckily back at the same article Insulin making the same problematic edits without discussing, but is now doing so as an IP. Can you please advise what is to be done here? Thanks. Zad68 15:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. If they don't run out of IPs, semiprotection can be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Cheers! Zad68 15:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
As you probably noticed, they're now editing as User:Keethi78, but you might also want to glance at the activity on Ciprofloxacin and Kanthi78 (talk · contribs). I will avoid doing any more reverts there for at least 24 hours. -- Scray (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
The socking continues apace, so I've issued two more blocks. Do you think a time will come when this editor will start discussing? EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! It's an unusual pattern in my limited experience - "clueless" in a non-pejorative way. It should've been obvious that a little discussion would've blunted all of their problems. Combined with circumstantial evidence that English was not the primary language, I have the impression that they really did not understand. It's also puzzling because I saw no secondary gain or agenda, such that it almost seemed like an assignment, and the edits evolved to slightly greater quality though still below acceptable. It's a little tragic, because I did get a sense that they are intelligent and wish to contribute (not collaboratively, though). -- Scray (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

User:JasonnF reported by User:RJFF (Result: Warned)

I have replied to the complaint sorry for being late. JasonnF (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Ag - just for clarity

For the sake of clarity - can you state explicitly whether the ban includes the DRV Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 October 11 of Marcel Leroux? 'You may participate regarding CC in admin pages and AE whenever your own behavior has previously been mentioned is ambiguous, since DRV could be considered an admin page, and Ag's behaviour has, arguably, been mentioned there William M. Connolley (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider DRV to be an admin board in that sense. It's a place to review decisions about content. Africangenesis should not continue to participate in the DRV since it's about a climate change topic. EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
The text didn't say "board", is what you posted official boiler plate? The AfD and DRV type pages are not the content, they have an administrative function. Based on the text you posted, and the facts as laid out by WMC, being able to edit on that page would have been a reasonable good faith interpretation. But we are in a situation where the text of procedures and rules are not guides but pretexts. --Africangenesis (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
To avoid misunderstanding, I changed 'board' to 'noticeboard' in the official notice. The idea of discretionary sanctions is that the closing admin can make whatever remedy they think will serve the problem. Somebody who is topic banned from an area should not be participating in AfDs or DRVs in that area. If you don't like the wording, use the appeal process. EdJohnston (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter - closing up!

Hey all :).

We're (very shortly) closing down this development cycle for Page Curation. It's genuinely been a pleasure to talk with you all and build software that is so close to my own heart, and also so effective. The current backlog is 9 days, and I've never seen it that low before.

However! Closing up shop does not mean not making any improvements. First-off, this is your last chance to give us a poke about unresolved bugs or report new ones on the talkpage. If something's going wrong, we want to know about it :). Second, we'll hopefully be taking another pass over the software next year. If you've got ideas for features Page Curation doesn't currently have, stick them here.

Again, it's been an honour. Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Esoglou allegations of Greek, Eastern Orthodox corruption of the Creed

Esoglou made these changes to the East-West schism article [90] without sourcing or discussion on article talkpage. Some of these changes are supposedly made by the Greek, Eastern Orthodox church and supposedly reflect E/O theology which Esoglou is not supposed to be making. Please tell him to not start attacking Vladimir Lossky again as he has done on other articles.LoveMonkey (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not start a talk page discussion about whatever you think is incorrect. Esoglou's change is not without interest, although his ability to make the change could be questioned. Perhaps the matter could be discussed one section at a time. If you can't stand the idea of talking to Esoglou, just state the problem on Talk and wait to see if others want to work on it. EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I have done as you requested. Please follow up there. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Here's Esoglou committing another edit restriction violation [91] For the record why is the article implying that the Western Christians in general and or the Roman Catholic church call Easter, now Pascha? I mean the Antiochian Orthodox call God Allah, because they use Arabic but nobody claims that we are Muslim. This type of POV pushing is confusing and is a form of obfuscating to people. Why is Esoglou allowed to do this stuff all over Wikipedia? As the Eastern Orthodox do not refer to passover (pascha) as Easter, we refer to it as pascha. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin

Ed, if you haven't already seen it, please take a look at this report and my closure. After the last brouhaha involving Arthur, I'd like my disposition reviewed. Feel free to take any action you wish if you disagree with what I did. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Your closure looks correct to me. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding AE

I am sorry to contact you at your talk page, but since all the confusion on the AE report I can imagine that it is hard, if not impossible to see everything. I saw the proposition of the result and I would like to say a few things, I hope this will not be taken as a bad comment by me.

I still don`t understand why are sanctions against me are considered since I did`t had contact with Nmate for a long time, except this new events of course. After this comments by Nmate [92] and [93] where he uses words like "anti-Hungarian" calling and calling me a xenophobe is not being noticed. I am not asking for sanctions against Nmate, but I am asking to reconsider taking actions against both sides. For example, for one not so harsh comment I was warned in 2010 and I think it is not right to ignore this comments by Nmate in this case. For my previous report I was warned and if sanctioned here I feel like in both cases I am punished while Nmate make inflammatory statements with no consequences.

A possible indefinite topic ban for me would just result in a confusion and most probably a permanent ban. Maybe you could reconsider a smaller time period of the ban or maybe even a warning for both of us.

Thank you for your time, Greetings. Adrian (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion at AE was to impose country-level bans. For instance, these would keep Nmate from writing about Romanian topics, and you from writing about Hungarian topics. The point of this is to reduce the need for the two of you to interact, while still allowing both of you to contribute. If you don't like this idea, please comment. EdJohnston (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion the best solution would be if this report could be sanctioned with warnings for both of us and maybe a 1RR when we are interacting so it would force both users to talk and to ask for other opinions. That would result in a long term solution without much tension. For the both of us to be forbidden to write reports against each-other as well for a while and a strict avoidance of inflammatory statements.
I understand your suggestion, but I will get confused for sure, I will be afraid to edit. For example historical articles, who can edit Matthias Bel or Treaty of Trianon,. For me, that would result in a permanent ban, it would be just a matter of time when I would make a mistake. If the solution of a topic ban would be adopted, I can only ask if that would not be indefinite, but for example 3 months, or similar. In the case of Nmate and me, interaction is unavoidable, especially because we edit a lot of the same articles, measures I suggest would be more effective on the long run in my opinion. Adrian (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Since Matthias Bel was born in Očová, a town which is located within the modern borders of Slovakia, you could write about him and Nmate could not, under the proposed rule. This article would fall under Nmate's ban from Slovakia. I would not see any problem with either of you writing about the Treaty of Trianon. EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
You don`t see a problem at the Trianon article, but what if I or Nmate would find an admin who is willing to ban one of us for a specific article. This would not stop us from writing reports again and again... 1rr in interaction, no ability to write reports for some time against one-another and strict avoidance of inflammatory statements could be much more efficient in my opinion. Who breaks one of this rule then a sanction would be imposed. We can`t avoid each-other on wiki for indefinite time, sooner or later one of us would made a mistake and one of us would engage in problematic reports and permanent bans. Nmate can be constructive, as I can, limiting us would be very problematic from my POV. If the topic ban is the only solution, I would like to ask not to be indefinite if possible. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I can't control what other admins might do in the future. But you and Nmate have been quarreling for a long time. I imagine that some admins are tired of seeing you report each other, especially when the reports are poorly written by our standards. Do you have any other ideas for reducing your level of conflict with Nmate? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don`t have much to add to my suggestion but I still think those measures would, in time, resolve our differences because we are forced to solve problems without reports, seek other editors opinion and avoid any inflammatory statements. Maybe in addition to force, when we are interacting to add verifiable information as a must - to avoid possible conflicts of opinions. In whole:

  • 1 revert rule/day when interacting on an article between me and Nmate
  • No ability to write reports against each other for a while
  • Strict avoidance of inflammatory statements
  • When contributing together at one article, as a must to add data with valid sources to avoid conflicts.
  • When a conflict appear, too keep it under control and as a must to seek other people`s opinion.

If any of us violate one if this terms, would face a block. And this terms to be active for 1 year, after that I don`t know.Adrian (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

This seems reasonable, but how can a block be issued in case of a violation. Doesn't that need a report? EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
If this are the terms, admin who imposes them would sanction in case of violation. The terms are pretty clear and there should`t be any complicated statements. At this point, there can`t be many interpretations of this rules. If a violation occurs one user would say exactly when and how is one of this rules violated on the admins talk page, provide diffs (without any history of us, diffs from 6 months and similar) and the admin would check it. In case one user makes 1 failed "report" - that is forgiven, and in the meantime 2 report proves to be false to, then a sanction would impose for false reporting(ban). If that current admin is unavailable at the moment maybe there could be established a second admin that could be contacted just in case. Maybe this could be done on some other way, this is only one idea.Adrian (talk)
This seems rather vague and hard to enforce. It would be more persuasive if the two of you would accept a voluntary restriction similar to the compulsory one I proposed at AE. By dividing up the area of conflict, you would be working on different articles and thus you would avoid revert wars. EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I don`t know. I would voluntary accept restriction I enumerated here, but topic ban I would`t be too happy about it, but I have no choice rather than to accept it. If it comes to the topic ban, I would like to ask not to be indefinite because that would start after six months reports for lifting this decision and who knows what. Of course, possible articles that are vague also would generate reports. Maybe if we accept my suggestion and put it under the AE as a special case for me and Nmate. There would be a possible report, but it would be much cleaner and faster. And after 2nd false report, the result would be a ban for the filing party. Adrian (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

I am trying to be neutral, but several of those trying to add non-neutral items should also try to be neutral. If you will ask me to explain in more detail I shall do so. Until then I do thank you for your assistance. Sirswindon (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The above has been copied here from my user page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Unsigned Changes to UST Global

Hello Ed. I hope you and yours are doing well. For quite a while after your last intervention, the employees at UST Global kept the site without changes regarding who founded the company. As you recall, the records for the founder of the site were spelled out in papers filed with the Superior Court of California in November 2007.

We have now reverted back to an individual(s) not signing in, making the edit to incorrectly state that G. A. Menon was founder and to remove the entry of Stephen J. Ross.

To help to possibly make this more clear, I have added under key people G. A. Menon's name as the company's 1st Chairman (which was his role) and it also shows Stephen Ross as Founder. Maybe this will help make the 2 very important (yet different) roles clear to the individuals who keep substituting 1 name for the other.

Thanks for considering what you had done the last 2 times of placing a restriction on edits for a period of XX days.

I am grateful to you Ed for this. Thanks & Regards, Steve Ross SteveJRoss (talk) 8:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Question and answer

Hello EdJohnston,

It isn't left me much choice, I will accept a voluntary restriction. However, I have to say that your reasoning at AE confounds me. Usually I do not edit articles Iadrian yu edits. Recently, Iadrian yu filled a RFA to set me up in which Iadrian yu provided a lot of diffs that did not concern him any way with outright false misinterpretations. Shortly after the RFA had been closed (just a couple of hours later), Iadrian yu followed me to 28 articles he had never edited before to partially revert me like nothing ever happened. And--and things were moving forward with me. I got angry when I saw that Iadrian followed me to 28 articles he had never edited before; and hence, I reverted Iadrian yu to the aforesaid 28 articles. It wasn't a content dispute, I took it as a harrasment. Although it is true that my reverts happend after a couple of days 'cause I missed to check my watchlist. I am not responsible for another user's behaviour. How could you come to the conclusion that I should be banned from editing articles on the grounds that I may be targetted there by Iadrian yu? If a user is targetted by one another, the targetted user is never sanctioned for it. Or, am I missing anything that is relevant to the case with respect to your original proposition, Ed? If so, please elucidate it to me.--Nmate (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_27&oldid=1142983097"